Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Home , 1989 Chilean grape scare, Amynothrips andersoni, Carcinops, Carcinops pumilio, Diparopsis, Echidnophaga

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa, USA Printed in the United States of America

Cover design by Lynn Ekblad, Different Angles, Ames, Iowa Graphics and layout by Richard Beachler, Instructional Technology Center, Iowa State University, Ames

ISBN 1-887383-23-9 ISSN 0194-4088 06 05 04 03 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging–in–Publication Data

Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies. p. cm. -- (Task force report, ISSN 0194-4088 ; no. 140) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-887383-23-9 (alk. paper) 1. Pests--Integrated control. I. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. II. Series: Task force report (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology) ; no. 140. SB950.I4573 2003 632'.9--dc21 2003006389

Task Force Report No. 140 June 2003

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Ames, Iowa, USA Task Force Members

Kenneth R. Barker (Chair), Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Esther Day, American Farmland Trust, DeKalb, Illinois

Timothy J. Gibb, Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Maud A. Hinchee, ArborGen, Summerville, South Carolina

Nancy C. Hinkle, Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens

Barry J. Jacobsen, Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology, Montana State University, Bozeman

James Knight, Department of Animal and Range Science, Montana State University, Bozeman

Kenneth A. Langeland, Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville

Evan Nebeker, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State

David A. Rosenberger, Plant Pathology Department, Cornell University–Hudson Valley Laboratory, High- land, New York

Donald P. Schmitt, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Hawaii, Honolulu

John C. Snyder, Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Lexington

Ann Sorensen, American Farmland Trust, DeKalb, Illinois

Walter R. Stevenson, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Stephen M. Stringham, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Scott M. Swinton, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing

David W. Watson, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Philip Westra, Department of Bioagricultural Science and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins

Mark E. Whalon, Center for Integrated Plant Systems, Michigan State University, East Lansing

Tom Whitson, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie

ii Task Force Members iii

Contributors

Harold D. Coble, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and U.S. Department of Agriculture

Larry Pedigo, Iowa State University, Ames

Invited Reviewers

Gerald Anderson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Sidney, Montana

Larry F. Grand, Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Dennis Keeney, Emeritus Professor, Iowa State University, Ames

Kimberly Mann, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Sidney, Montana

Clyde Sorenson, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Neal Spencer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Sidney, Montana

John C. Stewart, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Raleigh, North Carolina

Ron Stinner, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Turner B. Sutton, Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Acknowledgments

CAST recognizes and appreciates the financial support of the U. S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (Agreement Number 59-0790-3-107) to partially assist in the development and completion of this report.

The authors thank Dr. Richard E. Stuckey, former executive vice president of CAST, and Dr. Kayleen A. Niyo, former managing scientific editor, for their considerable assistance during the development of this report. Contents

Interpretive Summary ...... 1 Deployment in Cropping Systems, 1 Natural Ecosystems, 1 Food Animals, Wildlife, and Companion Animals, 1 Urban Areas, 2 Economics, 2 Education and Delivery Systems, 2 Assessments, 2 Future Challenges and Directions, 2

Executive Summary ...... 4 Historical Perspectives and Evolution of Integrated Pest Management Concepts, 4 Integrated Pest Management Toolbox, 4 New and Emerging Technologies, 5 Crop Production Systems, 6 Rangeland and Pasture, 7 Natural Areas, 7 Aquatic Vegetation, 7 Food Animals, 7 Mammalian Wildlife-Damage Control, 8 Companion-Animal Ectoparasites, Associated Pathogens, and Diseases, 8 Urban Areas, 8 Economics, 9 Education and Delivery Systems, 9 Future Challenges and Directions, 10

1 History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts ...... 11 Evolution of the Integrated Pest Management Concept, 12 The Clinton Administration’s Integrated Pest Management Initiative, 16 Objectives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Integrated Pest Management Initiative Strategic Plan, 16 The Environmental Protection Agency Initiative, 17 Call for Ecologically Based, or Biointensive, Pest Management, 19 Integrated Pest Management in the Twenty-First Century, 19 Risk Management, 20 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 22 Appendix B. Glossary, 22 Literature Cited, 23 Related Web Sites, 24

2 Integrated Pest Management Toolbox ...... 25 Exclusion/Avoidance, 25 Eradication, 27 Suppression of Pest Increase through Host Resistance, 29

iv Contents v

Host Resistance, 29 Cultural Practices for Minimizing Crop Pests, 34 Crop Rotation, 35 Tillage and No-Till, 36 Trap Crops, 38 Green Manure and Cover Crops, 38 Multiple Cropping or Polyculture (Intercropping), 39 Refugia, 39 Integrating Cultural Management Programs, 40 Decision Support Aids and Diagnostic Systems, 41 Field and Region, 41 Site-Specific (Precision) Agriculture, 43 Use of Diagnostics, 43 Biological Control, 46 Development of Biopesticide Products, 47 Insect Biocontrol, 47 Weed Biocontrol, 49 Biocontrol of Plant Pathogens, Including Nematodes, 50 Additional Methods for Enhancing Biocontrols, 52 Pesticides, 53 Why Do Pesticides Remain a Critical Component?, 53 The Role of Pesticides, 55 Effects of Changing Fungicide, Herbicide, and Insecticide Chemistries, 55 Pesticide Resistance Management, 61 Resistance Management in an Integrated Pest Management Context, 62 Resistance Management Tactics and Tools, 63 Certification and Regulation, 65 IPM Certification, 65 Ecolabels in an International Context, 67 IPM Regulation, 68 The Pest Management Information Decision Support System, 69 Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4), 69 Effects of Invasive Pests, 69 Means of Spread of Invasive Plant Pests, 71 Examples of Current Invasive Plant Pest Problems, 71 Reemergence of Old Plant Pests, 72 Integrated Pest Management and Agricultural Bioterrorism, 73 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 73 Appendix B. Glossary, 74 Literature Cited, 74 Related Web Sites, 81

3 New and Emerging Technologies...... 82 Site-Specific Integrated Pest Management, 82 Precision Farming, 82 Site-Specific Input Management, 83 Automated Data Acquisition, 84 Field Management Zones, 86 Spatial and Biological Strategies, 86 Agricultural Product Identity Preservation, 87 Integrated Systems, 89 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 90 Appendix B. Glossary, 90 vi Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Literature Cited, 90 Related Web Sites, 91

4 Crop Production Systems ...... 92 Field Crops, 93 Weeds, 95 Corn Insects and Pathogens, 96 Cotton Insects and Pathogens, 97 Soybean Insects and Pathogens, 98 Concerns for the Future, 99 Vegetable Crops, 99 Fruit Crops, 103 Integrated Forest Pest Management, 111 Prevention, 113 Detection and Evaluation, 114 Hazard Rating Systems, 115 Actions and Consequences, 115 Future Concerns, 116 Organic Systems/Sustainable Agriculture, 117 Organic Cropping Systems, 117 Organic Production Systems and Integrated Pest Management, 118 Sustainable Cropping Systems, 120 Components of Sustainable Agriculture, 121 Integrated Pest Management and Sustainable Agriculture, 122 Outlook, 122 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 122 Appendix B. Glossary, 123 Literature Cited, 123

5 Rangeland and Pasture ...... 128 Weed Management, 128 Education and Awareness, 128 Weed Prevention and Early Detection, 129 Physical and Mechanical Controls, 129 Chemical Controls, 131 Biological Controls, 131 Plant Competition and Rehabilitation, 132 Invasive Species Control and Site Preparation, 133 Weed Monitoring and Mapping, 133 Integrated Systems for Weed Management, 134 Insect and Pathogen Management, 134 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 135 Literature Cited, 135

6 Natural Areas Management ...... 137 Management Methods for Invasive Weeds, 138 Prevention, 138 Physical Methods, 139 Cultural Practices, 140 Herbicides, 142 Biological Control, 142 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 144 Appendix B. Glossary, 144 Contents vii

Literature Cited, 144

7 Integrated Management of Aquatic Vegetation ...... 145 Principles of a Successful Integrated Aquatic Plant Management Program, 145 Integrated Management of Specific Invasive Plants, 151 Alligatorweed, 151 Water Hyacinth, 151 Hydrilla, 152 Eurasian Watermilfoil, 153 Torpedo Grass, 154 Water Lettuce, 154 Giant Water Fern, 154 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 154 Appendix B. Glossary, 155 Literature Cited, 155

8 Food Animal Integrated Pest Management ...... 157 Livestock, 157 Dairy Cows and Confined Cattle Integrated Pest Management, 157 Range Cattle Integrated Pest Management, 159 Swine Integrated Pest Management, 160 Poultry, 161 Fly Management, 161 Beetle Management, 163 Ectoparasite Management, 164 Future Needs for Food Animal Integrated Pest Management, 166 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 166 Appendix B. Glossary, 166 Literature Cited, 166 Further Reading, 170

9 Wildlife-Damage Control ...... 171 Ungulates, 171 Damage Assessment, 171 Damage Identification, 172 Damage Prevention and Control, 172 Rodents, 174 Damage Assessment, 174 Damage Identification, 175 Damage Prevention and Control, 175 Mammalian Predators, 175 Damage Assessment, 175 Damage Identification, 176 Damage Prevention and Control, 176 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 177 Appendix B. Glossary, 177 Literature Cited, 178 Related Web Sites, 179

10 Companion Animal Ectoparasites, Associated Pathogens, and Diseases ...... 180 Importance of Pets, 180 Pest Significance, 180 Diseases Associated with Companion Animal Ectoparasites, 181 viii Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Fleas, 181 Mites, 182 Mosquitoes, 183 Lice, 183 Stable Flies, 184 Ticks, 184 Population Monitoring and Damage Assessment, 184 Suppression of Companion Animal Ectoparasites, 184 Current Status of Integrated Pest Management Implementation, 184 Control of Companion Animal Pests, 185 Biological Control, 185 Host Animal Resistance, 185 Chemical Control, 185 Natural Products, 185 Mechanical Control, 186 Monitoring and Action Thresholds, 186 Future Developments, 186 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 186 Appendix B. Glossary, 187 Literature Cited, 187

11 Urban Integrated Pest Management ...... 188 Inspection, 189 Monitoring, 189 Establishing Pest Tolerance Levels, 189 Tolerance Levels in Urban Landscapes, 190 Tolerance Levels in Urban Buildings and Structures, 190 Situation-Specific Decision Making, 190 Human-Health Concerns, 191 Application of Pest Management Techniques, 192 Pest Prevention by Exclusion, 192 Cultural Controls, 194 Biological Control, 194 Alternative Pesticides, 195 Chemical Pesticides, 195 Targeting in Time and Space, 195 Evaluation and Record Keeping, 196 Appendix A. Glossary, 196 Literature Cited, 197 Related Web Sites, 197

12 Economics in the Design, Assessment, Adoption, and Policy Analysis of Integrated Pest Management . . . 198 How Economics Relates to Integrated Pest Management, 198 Benefit-Cost Analysis and Pest Damage Thresholds, 198 Integrated Pest Management and Agricultural Income Risk, 200 Adoption of Integrated Pest Management: Why Do Growers Adopt?, 202 Public Program Assessment, 202 Measuring Cumulative Adoption of Integrated Pest Management, 203 Measuring the Value of Health and Environmental Effects, 203 Overall Returns to Research and Outreach in Integrated Pest Management, 204 Public Policy: Intended and Unintended Effects on Integrated Pest Management, 204 Private Sector Initiatives, 205 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 206 Contents ix

Appendix B. Glossary, 206 Literature Cited, 206 Related Web Sites, 208

13 Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems ...... 209 Education, Past and Present, 209 A Brief Chronology: The 1970s, 209 Moving Toward More Current Integrated Pest Management Education: The 1980s and the 1990s, 211 Delivery Systems, 211 Adoption of Integrated Pest Management, 213 Profile and Diffusion, 213 Adoption Barriers, 213 Measurement Systems, 217 Environmental Indicator Models, 217 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 219 Literature Cited, 219 References for Labeling and Regulation, 220

14 Future Challenges and Directions ...... 221 Key Issues for the Future, 222 Gene Technology Constraints, 222 Genetic Diversity and Pest Adaptability, 224 Ecologically Based Integrated Pest Management, 225 Systems Approaches, 226 Evolving Pool of Trainers and Speed of Technology Transfer, 226 Government Policy and Regulations, 227 Assessments of Integrated Pest Management, 229 Improvements Needed to Further the Goals of Integrated Pest Management, 229 Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms, 230 Appendix B. Glossary, 230 Literature Cited, 231 Related Web Sites, 232

Index ...... 233 Figures

S.1 A new biological control, the celery looper virus, is being tested for use against costly crop pests such as the cotton bollworm, 5 S.2 A corn eastern gamagrass hybrid. Eastern gamagrass is a native grass with a gene pool that has a lot to offer corn, including resistance to cold and insects, 6 S.3 A program manager for the Agricultural Research Service’s areawide pest management effort discusses the placement of codling moth pheromone dispensers in a pear orchard, 10 1.1 A cotton boll weevil, 12 1.2 The leaf beetle Diorhabda elongata is the first approved biological control agent for saltcedar in the United States, 13 1.3 An Extension agent, an agronomist, and a farmer work together as a team to figure out the best methods for growing wheat; timely and appropriate weed control measures are critical to conserving scant soil moisture in a dryland cropping system, 14 1.4 The interagency IR-4 program ensures the safety of so-called minor-use chemicals before they are approved for commercial agricultural production. A California agronomist displays test-plot-grown broccoli that will be used to determine pesticide residue levels, 15 1.5 Comparison of Consumers Union and USDA IPM Continuums, and examples of IPM elements or prevention-based practices characteristic of low, medium, and high IPM, 18 2.1 Ranchers in California set aside portions of their farms for collaborative studies on methyl bromide alternatives for strawberries, 28 2.2 Evidence for microbial breakdown of fenamiphos resulting from continuous usage. A. Population densities of Meloidogyne incognita second-stage juveniles in a sweetcorn-sweet potato-vetch cropping system. B. Concentration of fenamiphos sulfoxide as affected by fenamiphos history, 36 2.3 Mean population density of eggs of Heterodera glycines (soybean cyst nematode) at soybean harvest on susceptible cultivars grown in rotation with nonhosts for 0, 1, or 2 yr, 37 2.4 Mean soybean seed yield (kg/ha) of soybean cultivars susceptible to Heterodera glycines (soybean cyst nematode) planted in mid-May or late June and grown in rotation with nonhosts for 0, 1, or 2 yr, 37 2.5 Geo-referenced information on the field distribution of plant pathogens on potatoes and yield that could be useful in designing control strategies while minimizing pesticide use. A. Plant-parasitic nematodes; B. Verticillium; C. Early dying of potato (caused by Verticillium and lesion nematodes); D. Early blight surface; E. Yield of Russett Burbank (> 4 0z) CWT per acre, 40 2.6 Field scouting with “backpack” that allows for geo-referencing of information, 41 2.7 Using a gasoline-powered insect vacuum, a technician samples the number of spiders at various points in an Oklahoma wheat field, 44 2.8 Hooded sprayers operated by a field technician direct herbicide just to areas between rows of grain sorghum, 60

x Figures xi

2.9 Timeline for the development of insect resistance in arthropods, 61 2.10 Worldwide development of herbicide-resistant weeds, 61 3.1 To make variable-rate applications, modern farm equipment is equipped increasingly with computers, monitors, global positioning system receivers, and variable-rate controllers, 82 3.2 As a result of many variable factors affecting crop production, crop growth and yield differ across fields and regions, 82 3.3 Use of a crop harvester equipped with a yield monitor allows generation of a yield map showing yield variability within a field, 83 3.4 Knowledge of variation in soil type obtained from this kind of aerial photography is used to map different management zones across a field, 83 3.5 Sampling for pest presence and density can improve IPM strategies to improve crop production, 83 3.6 Precision irrigation and pesticide application will be possible with the new-generation irrigation systems under development, 84 3.7 Automated weather stations can provide real-time, site-specific weather data that can be used to seed crop-management decision support systems, 84 3.8 Multiband cameras in airplanes or on ground rigs can be used to detect nutrient, water, or disease stress in crop plants, 85 3.9 In the future, sensors may be mounted on tillage, spray, or irrigation equipment to collect data for data maps while other operations are being carried out, 85 3.10 Many crop management disciplines will undergo radical change to adapt to new technologies’ powerful effects on pest management and crop production, 86 3.11 This image represents a 140-acre irrigated pivot with crop management zones developed from aerial photography and soils testing (See also Figure 3.4). Colors represent the following crop production potentials: blue, high; green, medium; purple, low; and brown, very low, 86 3.12 A dramatic increase in the extent of transgenic crop planting in the United States has given rise to new IPM technologies that decrease soil erosion and insecticide use, 88 3.13 Pest management decision support systems will be integrated into systems designed to help manage all aspects of food and fiber production, 89 3.14 Integrated systems can contain components that help growers manage fertility and pesticide inputs at levels protecting groundwater and the environment generally, 89 3.15 Pest numbers generated from well-designed scouting activities often are used to "seed" decision support systems. Increasingly, such pest population dynamic values are being collected remotely, 90 4.1 Field scouting of sweet corn for plant diseases and insects, 100 4.2 Scouting for insects and plant diseases, 100 4.3 Insect traps often provide key information when monitoring pest development, 101 4.4 Scouting onion for insects and diseases, 101 4.5 Description of Barnyardgrass on the University of California–IPM Program website, 102 4.6 Access to phenology model database for corn earworm and tomato fruitworm from the University of Cal- ifornia—IPM Program website, 103 4.7 Beginning in 2000, the National Potato Council is using a pest management assessment survey to determine grower adoption of IPM practices, 103 xii Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

4.8 Flyspeck and sooty blotch diseases on apple fruit cause superficial defects unacceptable to consumers. These diseases are controlled by fungicides applied during summer, 105 4.9 Postharvest decays (in this instance caused by Botrytis cinerea) have been controlled with postharvest applications of fungicides, but improved sanitation and biocontrol products may provide alternatives in the future, 109 4.10 Severe decline in Frazer fir in Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina in 1990, 112 4.11 Regrowth of Frazer fir in Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina in 1997, 112 4.12 Agents of destruction and their associated proportion of growth loss in sawtimber, 113 4.13 Characteristics of various forest management situations in regard to pest control practices, 113 4.14 Interaction of multiple components that lead to growth loss and/or mortality over a forested landscape, 114 4.15 A disease-control threshold diagram showing (A) time and (B) amount of disease at which control must be applied to keep disease level below the economic injury level, 116 4.16 Productivity growth in U.S. agriculture, 1943 to 1993, 117 4.17 The components, functions, and enhancement strategies of biodiversity in agroecosystems, 120 5.1 Use of self-cleaning weed screens in an irrigation system to prevent the spread of weed seeds along irrigation ditches, 130 5.2 Components of a herbicide-wetblade mower system, 130 5.3 Example of herbicide deposit on cut stems of greasewood by means of a wetblade mower, 130 5.4 Effectiveness of a systems approach for replacing Russian knapweed infestation with (Bozoisky) Rus- sian wildrye, a sustainable forage species (when properly managed), 132 5.5 Combination of a herbicide and proper grazing that favors increased grass competition and sustainable weed control (left side); area on right side of fence was grazed heavily in early spring when grasses initiated new growth, 133 5.6 Components of an integrated system for rangeland weed control, 134 5.7 Role of revegetation in the management system to control prolific weed infestations such as this musk thistle invasion, 134 6.1 Native to Africa, Asia, and Australia, Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) is an invasive plant species that threatens natural communities in Florida, including Everglades National Park, 137 6.2 Specialized logging equipment is sometimes used to remove invasive tree species, 139 6.3 Attack of tree stands by invasive vines and other climbing plants has increased the danger of canopy fire and thus death to mature trees, 141 6.4 Tedious application of herbicide to the bark of individual trees (basal bark application) is often needed to control invasive tree species with minimal effects on nontarget vegetation, 142 6.5 The melaleuca snout beetle (Oxyops vitiosa) is hoped to slow the spread of this invasive tree species by limiting flower and seed production, 143 7.1 Management of aquatic vegetation is essential to navigation, irrigation, flood control, and natural and recreational resources, 145 7.2 Although expensive to operate, aquatic weed harvesters provide an important method of aquatic weed management, 146 7.3 Drawdown, the lowering of water level, sometimes is used to control aquatic vegetation by exposing it to freezing, drying, or heating, 147 Figures xiii

7.4 The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers undertakes a yearly collection of alligatorweed flea-beetles (Agasicles hygrophyla) for shipment to representatives of state or federal agencies, 151 7.5 When not managed at maintenance levels, water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) will displace native plant communities in lakes and rivers, 152 7.6 Genetically sterile triploid grass carp are used alone or in combination with herbicide application to control hydrilla (Hydrilla verticuillata) and other submersed aquatic vegetation, 153 8.1 The house fly—a primary pest of confinement livestock and poultry production systems, 157 8.2 The stable fly—a biting muscoid fly commonly associated with livestock production, 157 8.3 Muscidifurax raptorellus (and other parasitoids)—effective biological control agents for fly management in livestock and poultry production, 158 8.4 The horn fly (a biting muscoid fly)—a significant pest of pastured cattle worldwide, 159 8.5 Sarcoptic mange mite infestations adversely affect the performance of hogs and other livestock, 160 8.6 The German cockroach—an emergent structural pest in confinement swine production, 161 8.7 The hister beetle (Carcinops pumilio)—a valuable predator of muscoid flies in poultry houses, 162 8.8Macrochelids (and other predaceous mites) feed on fly eggs deposited in the manure of poultry houses, 162 8.9 Fungal pathogens such as Metarhizium anisopliae (left) and Beauveria bassiana (right) hold promise as biocontrol agents for house flies and other manure-inhabiting pests of poultry and livestock, 163 8.10 The lesser mealworm—the predominant beetle pest of poultry production, 163 8.11 The northern fowl mite—the most common ectoparasite of layer and breeder birds, 165 9.1 Deer damaging hay, 172 9.2 Electrical elk fence, 172 9.3 White-tailed deer near a road in West Virginia, 173 9.4 Elk grazing, 174 9.5 A. Setting a coyote leghold trap; B. Camouflaging a leghold trap, 177 10.1 Increasing size of blood-feeding tick, 180 10.2 Dog with scabies, 181 10.3 Face of cat flea, 182 10.4 Flea comb, 186 10.5 Pet owner compliance depends to a great extent on ease of control implementation, 186 11.1 Like landscape design, building architecture and layout are potentially important factors to consider in pest management, 193 11.2 In nature, many different parasites or predators can be found, each with unique ability to persist, to kill, and to seek out potential hosts, 194 11.3 Targeting pesticide applications to those areas in which monitoring has determined a need for control (spot treating) decreases the amount of pesticide applied and conserves natural controls already in place, 196 12.1 Static net gain function from pest control, 199 12.2 Dynamic and environmental net gain functions, 200 12.3 Classic curve illustrating increasing cumulative technology adoption over time, 203 Tables

2.1 Economically important disease, insect, and mite pests of tomato to which tomato breeders have successfully bred host-plant resistance, 32 2.2 Crop response in pest- or pathogen-infested fields following selected cropping systems, 35 2.3 Effects of tillage on pest population densities, 37 2.4 Incidence of rice tungro virus (RTV) disease on rice, as influenced by various numbers of rows of a trap crop in the Philippines, 38 2.5 Number of weed seeds/m2 extracted from 50 eastern Colorado corn fields, 45 2.6 Commercial bioinsecticides, 48 2.7 Additional bioinsecticides/biocides, 49 2.8 Promising bioherbicides, 49 2.9 Commercial microbial bacteriocides, 50 2.10 Commercial microbial fungicides, 51 4.1 Pest management practices, field crops, 1996, 94 4.2 A checklist of availability, importance, and commercial acceptance of various IPM tools for managing major pests on several fruit crops,108 6.1 Numbers of invasive nonindigenous plant species occurring in natural areas of the United States, as compiled on lists by various groups, 138 6.2 Toxicity of herbicides commonly used in natural areas of Florida, 142 6.3 Status of biological control agents for invasive nonindigenous plant species in natural areas (not including aquatic weeds), 143 7.1 Insect biological control agents on invasive aquatic plant species in the United States, 149 7.2 Herbicide active ingredients used for managing invasive aquatic plant species in the United States, 149 10.1 Major ectoparasite pests of dogs and cats, 180 10.2 Companion animal diseases and their vectors, 181 12.1 The impact of IPM on pesticide use, yields, and profits—summary of empirical results, 202 13.1 IPM education in the 1970s, 210 13.2 IPM nondegree training, 210 13.3 Degree programs and major areas of study related to IPM in the northeastern United States, 212 13.4 Curricula, past and present, 213 13.5 Environmental indicator models, 218

xiv Textboxes

2.1 A model IPM recommendation document for vegetables, 42 2.2 Wisconsin vegetable growers use WISDOM to manage pests, 42 2.3 Fire ants and IPM, 70 4.1 New vegetable varieties resist diseases: Multiple disease resistance benefits growers and consumers, 100 4.2 Screening vegetable varieties for disease resistance, 101 4.3Monitoring scheme critical for carrot leaf blights: Fungicides cut in half with scouting, proper timing, 102 4.4 Eliminating herbicides in New York state cabbage, 103 4.5 New York state muck onion growers see beneficial effects of Sudan grass cover cropping, 104 4.6 Measuring progress in IPM adoption: Survey of sweet corn growers provides data, 105 4.7 The growing market for IPM labels, 106 4.8 “Healthy Grown” potatoes: A case example of collaboration, 107 4.9 Integrated complexity: IPM for apple pests in southeastern New York and Connecticut, 110 12.1 Economics and decision support systems, 199 12.2 Two integrated pest management insurance policies, 201 12.3 Public-Private partnerships: World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, 205 13.1 Institutions offering IPM degrees/training/information on the Internet, 214 13.2 Case studies: Adoption barriers, 216

xv Foreword

Following a recommendation by the CAST National of the scientists, who made the time of these individ- Concerns Committee, the CAST Board of Directors uals available at no cost to CAST. CAST thanks all authorized preparation of a new report on integrated members who made additional contributions to assist pest management as an update of its 1982 report on in the preparation of this document. The members that topic. of CAST deserve special recognition because the un- Dr. Kenneth R. Barker, Department of Plant Pa- restricted contributions they have made in support of thology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, CAST also have financed the preparation and publi- served as chair for the report. A highly qualified group cation of this report. of scientists served as task force members. The group This report is being distributed widely; recipients included individuals with expertise in pest manage- include Members of Congress, the White House, the ment, entomology, plant pathology, animal and range U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Congressional science, agronomy, environmental science, horticul- Research Service, the Food and Drug Administration, ture, agricultural economics, and bioagricultural the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Agen- science. cy for International Development. Additional recipi- The task force prepared an initial draft of the re- ents include media personnel and institutional mem- port and revised all subsequent drafts. Contributors bers of CAST. Individual Members of CAST may provided additional input and invited reviewers read receive a complimentary copy upon request for a $3.00 selected sections. The CAST Executive Committee postage and handling fee. The report may be repro- and Editorial and Publications Committee reviewed duced in its entirety without permission. If copied in the final draft, and the authors reviewed the proofs. any manner, credit to the authors and to CAST would The CAST staff provided editorial and structural sug- be appreciated. gestions and published the report. The task force L. J. Koong authors are responsible for the report’s scientific President content. On behalf of CAST, we thank the chair, authors, Teresa A. Gruber contributors, and invited reviewers who gave of their Executive Vice President time and expertise to prepare this report as a contri- bution by the scientific community to public under- Linda M. Chimenti standing of the issue. We also thank the employers Managing Scientific Editor

xvi Interpretive Summary

In 1982, the Council for Agricultural Science and • refugia, and Technology (CAST) published Integrated Pest Man- • cover crops. agement, a report that focused on the decreased use With the pressure for decreased pesticide use and of pesticides. Now, new technologies and rigorous rapid growth of biointensive and organic food indus- government policies are bringing much promise, as tries, divergent pest management practices are being well as many challenges, to integrated pest manage- adapted for certain production systems. Biointensive ment (IPM). The current report emphasizes the de- IPM production involves one or more management velopment and implementation of biointensive IPM tools, including chemical inputs, when needed, to re- strategies and tactics as well as the continuing chal- strict pest populations below economic thresholds. In lenges. Issues addressed include the rapidly evolv- contrast, few or no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers ing pests in natural and agroecosystems, the avail- or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are permit- ability of innovative pest management tools, and the ted in organic production. Still, IPM must be central need to integrate those tools via a systems approach. for sustainable organic farming. Deployment in Cropping Systems Natural Ecosystems

The availability of both effective pest management Invasive pests are becoming an enormous problem strategies and the systems for their deployment is in U.S. terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Natural ar- fundamental for successful IPM programs. Key strat- eas and waterways are being invaded by both nonna- egies include tive and native pests and weed species. Increasing • prevention or avoidance of pests and/or pathogens, international jet travel has made introductions of • decrease of pest populations, pests nearly limitless. Although prevention is the most cost-effective control method, other tactics—in- • decrease of crop or animal susceptibility, cluding herbicides, mechanical methods, and habitat • eradication of pests, manipulation—must be used for previously intro- • a combination of strategies, or duced pests. Biological controls also have promise. • pursuing no action. Primary tactics (tools) used in IPM encompass Food Animals, Wildlife, and • host resistance, • use of natural enemies or biological controls, Companion Animals • cultural practices, and Integrated pest management is recognized as the • pesticides. preferred best management practice to minimize pest Reliable identification, diagnosis, and monitoring of problems on dairy and beef cattle and to protect farm pest populations are essential for successful IPM im- workers, consumers, and the environment. In swine plementation. production, effective management of arthropod pests Diverse strategies and tactics that may be used to is important in minimizing the risk of diseases and enhance the activities of soil- and foliage-inhabiting preventing related poor growth and poor feed conver- “beneficial” organisms include sion. For poultry IPM, houseflies are key pests of dry- • crop rotations, waste systems and other types of production that allow manure accumulation. • antagonistic plants or other organisms, Because of increasing human population and inten- • trap crops, sified land-use practices, wildlife damage control is an

1 2Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies increasingly important part of U.S. wildlife manage- systems are used, including many comprehensive ment. Control programs focus on problem-species Internet web sites. With so much information avail- ecology, control-method application, and control able, IPM resource personnel are needed to select the evaluation. appropriate information for specific situations. With approximately one-half of U.S. households owning pets, pests that affect companion animals are an important problem. In addition to insecticides, ac- Assessments aricides, and other available control tactics, future Because of increasing public concern about pesti- IPM options may include innate animal physiology to cides, the approaches used to evaluate IPM are becom- suppress the ectoparasites and to limit their delete- ing increasingly important. The environmental and rious effects on pet and pet-owner health. social parameters essential in assessing the consequences of pesticide use include • health impacts on farm workers, consumers, and Urban Areas the general public; Attaining acceptable levels of pest control without • lethal and chronic effects on other nontarget exposing people or the environment to excessive risks biota; from pesticides is the major goal of urban IPM; qual- • direct or indirect effects on natural and agroeco- itative factors such as aesthetics and peace of mind systems; usually substitute for the quantitative economics in- • calculation of air, soil, and water pollution; and volved in decision making for agricultural IPM. The • costs versus benefits to producers and to society components of urban IPM are inspection, monitoring, for decreasing pesticide use. situation-specific decision making, application of control techniques, and record keeping. Enlisting producers’ cooperation in compiling data on the parameters through surveys, sampling, and other means continues to be a challenge. Economics Economic analyses have been used to evaluate ex- Future Challenges and Directions pected profitability, social welfare impacts, effect of IPM research on financial returns, and policies affect- This comprehensive report concludes with a con- ing pest management adoption. Most of these assess- sideration of seven key issues for the future of IPM. ments have shown net benefits from IPM use, espe- • Gene technology constraints. Future crops cially from pest-resistant or pest-tolerant crop may be modified for increased compatibility with varieties. Pioneering benefit-cost analyses have tack- IPM systems. Key unresolved issues include the led the problems of multiple-season effects as well as extent to which genetically engineered crops will the valuation of health and environmental effects for be used in production systems, the rate at which individual IPM methods and programs. The complex- they will be adopted, their compatibility with ity of IPM methods and the difficulty of placing val- IPM systems, their acceptance or lack thereof by ues on environmental and health attributes may ac- the public, and their ultimate beneficiaries. count for the scarcity of comprehensive economic • Genetic diversity and pest adaptability. The assessments. ecological elasticity of many animal and crop pests allows them to adapt to almost limitless Education and Delivery Systems habitats. Genetic diversity within most crop pests often limits the utility of plant varieties Pest management personnel need training in a developed with resistance to one or more pests. variety of disciplines. Many universities have an IPM • Ecologically based IPM. Interest is growing component within traditional departments such as in shifting the focus of IPM from pesticide man- entomology or plant pathology. agement to a biointensive systems approach Striking changes in IPM delivery systems have oc- based on biological knowledge of pests and their curred since the 1960s. Initially, IPM information interactions with crops. Significant funding in- was disseminated primarily through print media and vestments will be required to build the ecologi- verbal communications. Now, diverse IPM delivery cal knowledge base needed for the multitude of ExecutiveInterpretive Summary Summary 3

cropping systems, pets, environments, and pest phasing in of the Food Quality Protection Act. complexes. The new National IPM Initiative, which focuses • Systems approaches. A major goal for maxi- on economic and environmental risk reduction, mizing the benefits of IPM and related cropping soon will be introduced. The need will continue systems is to increase understanding of the infor additional funding to support research on an teractions of microflora/fauna in natural and IPM systems approach. agricultural ecosystems. Effective collaborative • Assessments of IPM. Surveys suggest that the research and extension programs as well as co- greatest shortcoming in most current IPM pro- ordination with funding and support agencies are grams is the limited use of a systems approach. necessary; increased research on numerous field The ongoing national and international debates and vegetable crops and animals is warranted. on the future of genetically modified organisms • Evolving pool of trainers and speed of tech- will affect policies related to production, market- nology transfer. Distance education programs ing, and use of these new products. may help expand students’ access to college-lev- The prospects for increased adoption of IPM and el IPM courses. The increasing rate of develop- related cropping systems are excellent, despite chal- ment and the introduction of new technologies lenges that include public perceptions of new technol- challenges the agricultural community’s capacity ogies, limited financial resources, and an inadequate to provide the necessary training and information infrastructure. As the earth’s carrying capacity for to incorporate new tools into existing programs. humankind is stretched, and as thousands of invasive • Government policy and regulations. Imple- pests are encountered worldwide, research, agricul- mentation of IPM for urban pests likely will be ture, industry, government, and communities must the policy for most public properties at the fed- work together. Integrated pest management offers an eral, state, and local levels. Two future regula- effective option for production of the increasing tory issues will have impacts on IPM: the inter- amounts of food and fiber supplies needed to sustain national phase-out of methyl bromide, and the the nation and the world. 4Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Executive Summary

Historical Perspectives and tation of IPM in 75% of all crop production by the year 2000, renewed interest and funding from various IPM Evolution of Integrated Pest agencies. Corresponding increases in IPM adoption Management Concepts for certain crops have occurred over the last decade, but a multidimensional integration of methods for The idea of using multiple tactics and strategies for controlling all types of pests remains a challenge. disease control was introduced by the German bota- Numerous federal and technological developments nist Julius Gotthele Kühn in the 1880s. Although the continue to affect IPM. At the federal level, the 1996 term integrated pest management (IPM) was used first Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) limits the use of by the entomologists Smith and van den Bosch (1967), certain pesticides. The problems of pest resistance the concept was grasped in the late 1950s and 1960s and of new races of pests overcoming genetic host- by entomologists beginning to identify the problems plant resistance also pose challenges. New technolo- of insect resistance to pesticides and of detrimental gies for host resistance or tolerance that are related ecological effects caused by widespread use of insec- to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and the ticides. Stern and colleagues (1959) used the phrase higher-quality pest management offered through pre- integrated control to describe pest control involving a cision agriculture, constitute opportunities as well as combination and integration of biological and chemi- challenges. cal tactics. They deployed chemical tactics in a man- The recent books Ecologically Based Pest Manage- ner to minimize disruption of biological control. The ment: New Solutions for a New Century (Overton concepts economic injury level and economic thresh- 1996; see Chapter 1) and Pest Management at the olds, both crucial to IPM decision making, also were Crossroads (Benbrook et al. 1996; see Chapter 14) introduced by these researchers. While development map out enormous tasks for the pest control disci- of the concepts of multiple pest-control tactics and plines. Movement beyond individual pests and crops their integration set the stage for IPM, Rachel Car- by building and participating in broadly based, com- son’s 1962 Silent Spring ignited widespread debate petent IPM teams is necessary if pest control in di- about pesticides and undoubtedly helped catalyze the verse agroecosystems is to be understood. Addition- development of IPM along with the environmental ally, administrators, grant managers, and others movement. must find ways to encourage scientists to participate The need for IPM increased in the 1970s and 1980s in interdisciplinary teams in which long-term, com- as pesticides posing hazards to human health and the plex research and technology transfer are end environment were removed from the market. Simul- products. taneously, decision-support software programs resulted in significant savings for growers by decreasing their reliance on pesticides. Formal involvement of Integrated Pest Management plant pathologists, nematologists, and weed scientists Toolbox with entomologists in IPM programs resulted mainly from numerous U.S. government-supported The development and deployment of effective pest projects. Regrettably, funding for IPM research and management strategies and tactics into suitable pro- implementation remained essentially static in the duction systems are fundamental to successful IPM 1970s and the 1980s. The 1994 U.S. Department of programs. Not surprisingly, tools effectively used for Agriculture’s (USDA) IPM Initiative heralded a new managing pests of crops or animals often are useful era for IPM. The initiative, which was adopted after for managing pests in rural or urban settings. Key the Clinton Administration’s 1993 commitment to the IPM strategies include prevention or avoidance of decreased use of high-risk pesticides and implemen- pests and/or pathogens, decreased pest populations,

4 Executive Summary 5 decreased host susceptibility, and pest eradication. Three new technologies affecting IPM adoption are These strategies may be used independently but are precision farming tools, transgenic plants, and inte- more often combined in a holistic approach. Primary grated production systems. Precision farming in- tactics used in IPM encompass breeding for host-plant volves the use of computers, global positioning sys- resistance and using natural enemies or biological tems (GPS), receivers, computer-generated field controls (Figure S.1), cultural practices, and pesti- maps, decision-support models, and specialized vari- cides. Reliable identification, diagnosis, and monitor- able-rate equipment to modify input levels and to ing of pest populations are essential. monitor final crop yield. Specialized crop harvesters equipped with GPS and yield monitors allow farmers to generate yield maps and to monitor variations in New and Emerging Technologies yield, based on inputs. By tracking this information through geographical information systems, comput- New technologies based on computers, cell phones, erized decision-support models simulating crop-pest the World Wide Web, and “smart machines” are af- interactions can be developed to automate the thresh- fecting IPM and agriculture generally. These new old-based decision rules of classic IPM. technologies are being applied to agriculture and to With recent publicity regarding animal cloning and IPM by private companies and through public and transgenic crops (e.g., Starlink corn), issues related private research. Revolutions in information systems to transgenic organisms have been publicized wide- and genetic technologies (bioinformatics) are affect- ly. Although transgenic plant technology is in its in- ing IPM as a component of integrated crop production. fancy, precision genetics holds great promise for bringing new, effective tools to IPM. For example, herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops developed through genetic engineering have been commercialized and used throughout the United States (Figure S.2). An integrated, whole-farm systems approach to agricultural research and management, including IPM, remains an important goal. The complex system of sustainable agriculture, which demands consideration of integrated factors, processes, and institutions, reflects this need. Although computer-based decision- support systems have been developed for various aspects of agriculture and for IPM, the complexity of farm-crop and IPM systems limits interdisciplinary collaborations so essential to integration. Neverthe- less, integrated information and operational systems offer improved prediction and management capabilities that enhance understanding of these systems and their economic and environmental effects.

Crop Production Systems

Cropping system concepts for IPM have expanded to encompass very diverse strategies and tactics. Crop rotations, antagonistic plants or other organisms, trap crops, refugia, and cover crops may be used to enhance the activities of beneficial organisms. Indeed, one goal of a rotation or change in cropping system is to elim- Figure S.1. A new biological control, the celery looper virus, is inate harmful pests from the soil so that it can sup- being tested for use against costly crop pests such port a healthy crop. To bring this about, IPM systems as the cotton bollworm. Photo by Scott Bauer, Ag- must address the fact that significant levels of pre- ricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Ag- riculture, Beltsville, Maryland. dation and/or parasitism promote diversity and sus- 6Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies tainability. Thus, cropping systems must relate to for IPM, exacerbated by consumer demands for blem- IPM goals as well as to soil and crop health. ish-free products. But growers have become adept at Although certain crops have low-intensity inputs monitoring pest populations, delaying pesticide appli- and values, steps for achieving IPM adoption are sim- cations until pest numbers reach economic thresholds, ilar for all crops. The decision to manage pests on and timing applications to maximize pesticide effica- crops by specific means should be made only after the cy. Certification of planting stock as pest-free, espe- problem and magnitude have been identified and a cially virus-free, remains an IPM cornerstone for fruit cost/benefit analysis of various management tactics and other vegetatively propagated crops such as has been conducted. Cultural practices and host re- potato. sistance have been the primary IPM tools on corn and Integrated pest management is beginning to di- soybean, but significant changes are occurring on verge significantly among production systems. Bio- these crops, including the use of genetically engi- intensive IPM production involves, in concert with neered herbicide tolerance, transgenic insect resis- cultural and other management tools, one or more tance, and precision-agriculture tools. Thus, a new chemical inputs, when needed, to restrict pest popu- philosophy and approach to IPM is forthcoming. Tra- lations below economic thresholds. In contrast, IPM ditionally, high pesticide-usage has been central to practices for organic production involve a very re- vegetable, fruit, and cotton production. Today, IPM stricted list of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and offers promise for decreasing chemical use on these no GMOs. The animal waste products often used in crops. Perennial fruit crops pose special challenges organic production, however, can pose considerable environmental risks. Nevertheless, organic products have an annual growth rate of more than 20% in the United States and Europe. Integrated pest management concepts for forests often involve divergent approaches as well. Ecosys- tem management for sustaining forest resources has much to offer but may not include consideration of pest problems. Yet many forests are encountering severe damage from pollutants, endemic pests, and invasive species. The guiding principles used to prevent loss of forest resources have much in common with other ecology-based management systems. The twofold increase in U.S. agricultural production on fewer acres over the last five decades is viewed by some people as evidence that U.S. agriculture is sustainable. But heavy reliance on chemical pesticides and fertilizers and poor soil management have had significant negative effects. Simultaneously, rapidly increasing world populations and decreasing amounts of arable land translate into demands for even greater productivity per land unit. A key development related to enhancing interest in agricultural sustainability has been widespread recognition that environmentally sound practices must be profitable if they are to be adopted and certain synthetic chemicals may be necessary to ensure sustainability of intensive farming systems. Scientifically based IPM programs are an essential component of sustainable agricultural systems for the future. Figure S.2. A corn eastern gamagrass hybrid. Eastern gamagrass is a native grass with a gene pool that has a lot to offer corn, including resistance to cold and Rangeland and Pasture insects. Photo by Scott Bauer, Agricultural Re- search Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, In 1997, more than 589 million acres (a.) of pasture Beltsville, Maryland. and rangeland existed in the United States. Regret- Executive Summary 7 tably, invasive weeds and other pests have become in- in aquatic habitats. Aquatic plant managers consid- creasingly troublesome on these important lands. For er it necessary to manage these pests at the lowest example, more than 17 million a. of federally owned population level (often referred to as maintenance rangeland was infested with invasive weeds in 1997, control) because of difficulties associated with (1) dean amount that has increased at 15% annually. The fining aquatic weed populations at or below econom- most effective IPM strategies encompass multiple ic injury levels, (2) the great reproductive potentials tactics (e.g., physical, mechanical, chemical, and bio- and the rapid growth rates of invasive aquatic plant logical controls) as well as public awareness and ed- species found in U.S. waters, and (3) the return of ucation. Prevention is the least costly means of inva- uncontrolled populations to manageable levels. Nu- sive-weed management. Once established, control of merous principles central to successful aquatic IPM unwanted species, such as leafy spurge, may cost more have been documented, and a range of control tactics than $500/a. per year (yr). Much research remains is available. to be done, including the development of a competitive systems approach, a combination of biological and herbicide management, and plant rehabilitation. Food Animals Livestock and poultry industries are characterized by production and marketing systems ranging from Natural Areas large, vertically integrated companies that dominate poultry and swine production to small, independent Natural areas, or areas set aside in national and growers selling products directly to consumers. Each state parks and elsewhere for management of natu- segment represents a unique set of IPM challenges, ral resources, are being invaded by nonnative plant in terms of both the pests and the management ap- and other pest species. Introductions of invasive pests proaches compatible with the production environ- have been both accidental and intentional, and with ment. But cultural practices, biological controls, greatly improved transportation, the potential for monitoring, and the judicial use of pesticides all play long-distance anthropogenic, or human-influenced, important roles in IPM programs for livestock and introductions has become virtually limitless. Until poultry production. Because livestock and poultry recently, regulation of weeds in natural areas has production are considered minor pesticide use com- been limited; often, the problem has been addressed modities, the availability of labeled pesticides and the by cities, counties, states, and other institutions or introduction of new chemistries are limited. The rel- individuals. The 1999 Presidential Executive Order ative paucity of pesticide options and the associated on invasive species and the establishment of state and complexity of managing pesticide resistance have regional Exotic Pest Plant Councils provide a frame- combined to emphasize the need for a balanced IPM work for progress in IPM related to invasive plant approach for animal agriculture. Indeed, the dairy species in natural areas. Many plant species consid- and beef cattle industries recognize IPM as the pre- ered invasive by land managers often are available ferred set of best management practices to minimize in the nursery and landscape business. Thus, prohib- pest problems and to protect farm workers, consum- iting the sale of invasive species might contribute to ers, and the environment. more effective IPM for natural areas. Although pre- Effective management affecting livestock and poul- vention is the most cost-effective tactic for invasive try pests decreases disease risk and production loss plant control, other tactics such as cultural methods resulting from poor growth, development, and/or feed and herbicidal and biological controls must be used conversion. Strict biosecurity, as practiced by confine- for established pests. ment livestock and poultry producers, limits the movement of people and equipment and prevents the Aquatic Vegetation spread of many common ectoparasites between and within farms. Isolation and prophylactic treatment Examples of nonnative, invasive aquatic weeds in- of all newly purchased stock ensures introduction of clude alligatorweed, water hyacinth, hydrilla, Eur- pest-free animals into the herd or flock. Injectable asian watermilfoil, torpedo grass, water lettuce, and oral and pour-on parasiticides have largely replaced giant water fern. Management of aquatic vegetation sprays for the management of mites, lice, and bot flies is essential to navigation, irrigation, flood control, and in cattle and swine. The precision of these applica- natural and recreational resource protection. Both tion methods has improved applicator safety, im- native and nonnative plant species often are problems proved control, and decreased the environmental risks 8Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies associated with sprays or dips. portant ectoparasites are fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes. Houseflies are the primary pests of dry-waste sys- (Endoparasites are treated with drugs and parasiti- tems often associated with certain types of poultry cides; however, sanitation plays a role in exposure of production where manure is allowed to accumulate the pet.) Fleas transmit tapeworms and cause ane- beneath cages or slats. Similarly, houseflies and sta- mia and flea-allergy dermatitis. Ticks transmit sev- ble flies are associated with cattle feed lots and dair- eral pathogens, causing illnesses such as Lyme dis- ies where they breed in manure, silage, and wastage ease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and ehrlichiosis. around feed bunkers and silos. The two principal IPM The primary health effect of mosquitoes is transmis- objectives for managing these and other waste-breed- sion of dog heartworm. Nationwide, costs of flea treating flies in poultry and livestock facilities are (1) de- ment combined with costs for testing and treating an- creasing moisture in the fly-breeding substrate and cillary flea problems such as flea-allergy dermatitis (2) effecting biologic control. An implicit goal of all and tapeworms amount to $3.8 billion per yr. Costs such fly IPM programs is decreased reliance on of treating tick-transmitted disease agents amount to pesticides. approximately $108 million per yr. Nationally, more than $600 million is spent annually on heartworm testing, prophylaxis, and treatment. Thus, pet ecto- Mammalian Wildlife-Damage parasites are exceptionally significant in terms of Control their effects on companion animals and the economy. Diseases associated with animal ectoparasites fall Because of expanding human populations and in- into two categories: those caused by the arthropod tensified land-use practices, wildlife-damage control itself and those induced by arthropod-vectored patho- is becoming increasingly important. Wildlife IPM in- gens. In addition to continued use of insecticides, cludes preventive as well as curative practices. Cul- acaricides, and other available control tactics, options tural practices coupled with exclusion, repellents, or for controlling animal ectoparasites in the future like- toxicants and other lethal control measures address ly will include manipulating innate animal physiolo- most types of mammalian wildlife damage. As pro- gy to suppress ectoparasites, minimizing deleterious fessionals become increasingly aware of nonbiologi- effects on pet and pet-owner health. cal considerations, public education, legal, and social considerations are influencing wildlife-damage prevention programs. Such programs usually focus on Urban Areas four issues: problem definition, problem-species ecol- Although its roots lie in contemporary agriculture, ogy, control-method application, and control evalua- urban IPM features a human rather than an economic tion. Key wildlife pests include ungulates, rodents, factor in the pest management equation. For exam- and mammalian predators. Accurate damage iden- ple, qualitative aspects such as aesthetics, health, and tification of wildlife and assessment of losses to spe- peace of mind substitute in many ways for the quan- cific predators are equally important to the implemen- titative aspects involved in agricultural IPM decision tation of appropriate control practices. making. Regardless of whether a pest is a pathogen, an insect, a weed, or a rodent, if it damages homes, Companion-Animal structures, clothing, food, or landscape plantings, or harms, annoys, or otherwise interferes with people Ectoparasites, Associated and their activities, it is an urban pest. General con- Pathogens, and Diseases cerns in the urban IPM community include public attitudes, perceptions, and prejudices regarding pests Pet ownership in the United States is increasing, and pesticides and their effects on human activity and as is the significance of pets in American life. Along the environment. A massive push to decrease human with dogs and cats come their ectoparasites and dis- exposure to toxicants of all kinds is underway. Rights ease agents. Management of these ectoparasites re- are being legislated: rights to be informed of pesticide lies primarily on insecticides and acaricides supple- use, residues, and toxicity levels; rights to pollution- mented with mechanical, cultural, and biological free public environments in which to work, visit, or controls. More than one-half of U.S. households con- study; and rights to be free from harmful parasites, tain pets, totaling more than 60 million dogs and near- diseases, and nuisance pests. Implementation of IPM ly 70 million cats. The three most economically im- in schools and other public facilities is one of the fast- Executive Summary 9 est-growing segments of pest management. Attain- ity, and price, but also of adopting threshold-based ing acceptable levels of pest management without IPM practices. Additionally, public cost-sharing pro- exposing people and the environment to excessive grams can decrease the costs of adopting IPM prac- risks from pesticides is the major goal of urban IPM. tices. Surveys indicating that consumers are willing to pay for foods with decreased pesticide residues have led firms to develop ecolabels certifying production Economics process quality. In certain regions of the United States, ecolabeling is making IPM a prerequisite for Economics has played a central role in IPM tech- growers wishing to obtain production contracts for nology assessment and policy analysis. Economic fruits and vegetables. analysis has been applied to evaluate expected prof- The daunting problems associated with defining itability (ex ante and ex post adoption), social welfare and measuring IPM have impeded comprehensive as- effects, research returns, and policies affecting pest sessments of IPM research, and no major IPM exten- management generally. Economic analyses have sion assessment has been completed in the United played an important role in the development of States for two decades. The failure to measure bene- threshold-based IPM and associated software to aid fits comprehensively will hamper attempts to garner pest management decision making. future public support for IPM programs. Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) can answer the question of whether IPM is worthwhile from the viewpoint of producer, consumer, and/or society at large. Such Education and Delivery Systems an analysis can be financial, including only cash costs and benefits, or economic, including the opportunity Conceptualizations of IPM education, adoption, cost of alternatives not pursued and the external ef- and related evaluation have evolved concurrently. fects of a pest management practice on other parts of Most IPM educational programs have been interdis- society. The BCA becomes considerably more complex ciplinary, with only a few institutions offering degrees when involving IPM effects over more than one sea- or minors in IPM. Although most U.S. universities son or estimating the value of the seemingly priceless offer an IPM component in traditional departments (e.g., clean water, biodiversity, or more-stable crop such as entomology or plant pathology, the Universi- yields). ty of Florida recently established the only Ph.D. de- An economic threshold offers a guideline for decid- gree program in plant medicine—a long-discussed ing whether pest control (usually by pesticide) is need- need in the United States. ed and, if so, which method is preferred. This thresh- Very diverse IPM delivery systems are being used, old simply identifies the pest level at which treatment including many comprehensive web sites and tradi- would become profitable. More sophisticated thresh- tional outlets involving printed materials and person- olds have been developed that take into account sev- al interactions. With nearly limitless information eral factors: (1) yield damage from future generations available, IPM resource personnel are needed to iden- of pests allowed to reproduce, (2) environmental tify which information applies in given situations (Fig- and health costs, and (3) spatial patterns of pest ure S.3). dispersion. The 1994 USDA IPM Initiative had a goal of 75% Although most biological-pest control methods re- implementation of IPM (on the basis of acres of crop- main to be analyzed economically, considerable eco- land) by the year 2000. Although at least certain as- nomic work has been done on crops genetically mod- pects of IPM were practiced on 75% or more of land ified for pest resistance or herbicide tolerance. planted to several crops, in-depth or biointensive IPM National survey results for 1997 indicated that plant- was adopted on less than 20% of cropland in 2000. ing herbicide-resistant corn or soybean or planting With increasing public concerns about pesticides Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn did not affect profit and related issues, approaches used in IPM evalua- level for U.S. farmers. Cotton growers did increase tions are becoming increasingly important. The en- profitability, however, by using both herbicide-resis- vironmental and social parameters essential in as- tant and Bt varieties. sessments of the consequences of pesticide use include Several approaches to decreasing pesticide reliance health of farm workers, consumers, and the general have emerged from economic research. Appropriate- public; lethal and chronic effects on other nontarget ly designed crop insurance can insulate farmers biota; direct or indirect effects on natural and agro- against the risks not only of variable crop yield, qual- ecosystems; parameters to calculate air, soil, and 10 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies water pollution; and costs versus benefits to produc- agement of pesticide resistance. To date, more than ers and society for decreased pesticide use. Enlisting 500 species of arthropods, 100 species of plant patho- producer cooperation in compiling these data by sur- gens, and 100 biotypes of weeds have developed such vey, sampling, and other means continues to be a resistance. For many pests, their rapid windborne challenge. dissemination compounds the importance of this worldwide problem. As new species and strains of pests continue to ap- Future Challenges and Directions pear in the United States, interest in invasive pests increases. Annual costs and damages due to nonna- In this era of increasing public pressure for safe, tive pest species have been estimated at $123 billion, high-quality food, new technologies promise much for or higher. Invasive plants and other pests spread improved IPM programs. Although traditional genet- rapidly into natural areas, aquatic habitats, forests, ic resistance to pests continues to be an invaluable tool pastures and rangelands, and other agroecosystems. for protecting crops against many very damaging Jet-based global travel and global trade undoubtedly pests, genetic engineering is providing an important are important factors contributing to the increase in nonnative pests. Federal government policies, bans, regulations, resource allocations, and special programs affect IPM programs. At the state level, various Departments of Education and Health have created policy statements on implementation of IPM for schools and other public properties. The phasing out of methyl bromide by the year 2005 and the phasing in of the FQPA pose significant challenges to IPM adoption. This act re- defines how pesticides are regulated and will restrict the availability of certain pesticides. Fruits and vegetables, because of their preponderance in children’s diets, will be hard hit by the FQPA. The new USDA Regional IPM Centers are addressing the FQPA re- Figure S.3. A program manager for the Agricultural Research quirements as well as advancing improved IPM strat- Service’s areawide pest management effort dis- egies and systems. cusses the placement of codling moth pheromone Government policies on specific food groups or dispensers in a pear orchard. Photo by Scott Bauer, products such as organic foods and GMOs continue Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. to be refined. Crop insurance for IPM and labeling of IPM also could have important effects on the future new approach to the development of host resistance. of IPM. The most recent important federal legisla- When issues such as food and environmental safety tion to affect IPM is the 2002 farm bill, including the and grower/society acceptance are resolved, DNA new IPM Initiative. That new initiative focuses on technology should have great potential to develop risk reduction—economic risk and environmental value-added traits such as herbicide tolerance and risk—with decisions on the specific use of related pathogen and insect resistance to crops. This tech- funds being made at the state level. nology also offers exceptional accuracy in identifica- For significantly enhanced future development and tion and characterization of pest species and commu- full adoption of IPM nationally, a well-coordinated nities. Precision agriculture also should lead to and supported federal IPM entity that focuses on the decreased pesticide use and enhanced profitability. goals of the IPM initiative is crucial. Application of Systems approaches can be used to integrate infor- findings from in-depth ecological research on agro- mation, production, and IPM systems and to bring ecosystems coordinated with extensive economic as- pest management to a new level. sessments that document the benefits of IPM will con- Close attention still must be directed at the man- tribute immeasurably to this goal. History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts 11

1 History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts

The concept of using multiple strategies and tac- eral nematicides, paucity of new synthetic chemical tics for plant disease control was introduced in the products, and increased awareness of ecological con- mid-1880s by the German botany professor Julius sequences of pesticide use have led to an ever increas- Gotthele Kühn. The term integrated pest manage- ing emphasis on implementation of IPM practices by ment (IPM), clearly related to Kühn’s work, was first all crop protection disciplines. used by entomologists Smith and van den Bosch in The formal involvement of other pest control pro- 1967 and was based on the integrated control concept. fessionals with entomologists in IPM programs was Researchers in the Departments of Entomology at the the result mainly of the Huffaker Project, cofunded Universities of California–Riverside and –Berkeley in 1972 by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. had defined integrated control as applied pest control Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. that combines and integrates biological and chemical Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the USDA’s controls, the latter being used as necessary and in the Cooperative Extension Service (CES). The last pro- manner least disruptive to the former (Stern et al. vided funding for Extension IPM programs in every 1959). In fact, widespread concerns about the effects state in 1975. Although these high-visibility projects of pesticides on the environment and health played a promoted adoption of IPM terminology in all pest con- key role in the development of IPM. Carson’s 1962 trol disciplines, plant disease control personnel nev- book Silent Spring contributed greatly to the world- er embraced the concept of pathogen (pest) eradica- wide debate on the potentially negative aspects of tion/control based solely on pesticide use, a common pesticides and to the environmental movement (Wad- practice of entomologists and weed scientists. Plant dell 2000). pathologists endorsed integrated disease manage- Although definition of the term IPM first appeared ment by means of the application of fundamental primarily in entomological lexicons, integration of knowledge of loss potential and pathogen biology, ecol- several control strategies has been the basic tenet of ogy, and disease epidemiology. In comparison, the plant disease control since the inception of the applied highly effective synthetic organochlorine and organ- science of plant pathology. Although slow to adopt ophosphate insectides and herbicides available dur- IPM concepts at first, pathologists, nematologists, and ing the post-WWII period made chemicals the first weed scientists now are important partners in the choice for control of insect and weed pests in the 1950s development and implementation of those concepts. and the 1960s. It can be argued that in the late 1950s and early Since the Huffaker Project and the CES initiative, 1960s the formalized IPM concept first was grasped plant pathologists, entomologists, nematologists, by entomologists after they began identifying the weed scientists, agronomists, horticulturists, crop problems of pest resistance to insecticides and of ad- consultants, farmers, and others have contributed verse ecological effects associated with their wide- significantly to the implementation of IPM programs spread use. From the 1940s to the mid-1960s, the lack for many crops and cropping systems. Cooperative of a pesticide “silver bullet” such as that afforded to Extension Service funding of pilot projects using entomologists and weed scientists by synthetic insec- scouts and encouraging development of pest manage- ticides and herbicides had forced plant pathologists ment cooperatives has been key to the development to emphasize nonpesticide control strategies. These of a cadre of independent crop consultants that pro- strategies included genetic host resistance to patho- mote and implement IPM in every state. Another key gens, cultural controls such as rotation and tillage, to building interdisciplinary teams for IPM has been and pathogen-free seed or planting stock. More re- the acceptance by other crop protection disciplines of cently, fungal and bacterial pathogen resistance to the entomological definition of the term pest to de- fungicides and bactericides, weed resistance to sev- scribe not only arthropods and rodents but also plant eral classes of herbicides, loss of registration of sev- pathogens, weeds, and nematodes.

11 12 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Although many working definitions of IPM are pest population monitoring, with the EIL or the ET available, that adopted by the National Coalition of concepts. IPM will be used in this chapter. The coalition’s def- Smith and van den Bosch (1967) not only intro- inition of IPM is “a sustainable approach to manag- duced the term integrated pest management but made ing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, a strong case for integration of all control strategies and chemical tools in a way that minimizes econom- and for application of ecological principles to pest con- ic, health, and environmental risks” (Jacobsen, B. J. trol in agricultural production systems. These re- 2002. Personal communication). This definition researchers also introduced the concept of the key pest, flects considerable evolution of the IPM concept, from “a serious, perennially occurring species that domi- its beginnings in 1959 (Stern et al. 1959) to a more nates control practices because in the absence of de- recent call for ecologically based pest management liberate control by man, the pest population usually (EBPM) (Overton 1996), or biointensive IPM (Ben- remains above the economic injury levels” (p. 295). brook et al. 1996). In 1998, the USDA’s IPM Program Examples of key insect pests include coddling moth Coordinator articulated the prevention, avoidance, on pome fruits in the western United States, boll wee- monitoring, and suppression (PAMS) concept: preven- vil on cotton (Figure 1.1), alfalfa weevil on alfalfa, flea tion, or the practice of keeping a pest population from beetle and looper on crucifers, root maggot on sugar infesting a crop or field; avoidance, or the practice of using cultural techniques to avoid losses to pests that could be present in a field; monitoring, or the practice of observing pest populations, weather, and nutrients; and suppression, or the practice of using cultural, physical, biological, or pesticidal means to suppress pest populations (Coble 1998). The PAMS concept provides broad descriptors for assessing IPM implementation across various crops and cropping systems.

Evolution of the Integrated Pest Management Concept The 1959 paper “The Integration of Chemical and Biological Control of the Spotted Alfalfa Aphid” (Stern Figure 1.1. A cotton boll weevil. Photo from the Agricultural et al. 1959) formalized the concept not only of inte- Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, grated control but also of equilibrium population and Beltsville, Maryland. introduced the concepts of economic injury level (EIL) and economic threshold (ET). The EIL is the pest beet, and Hessian fly on wheat. Examples of diseas- population level capable of producing damage the cost es that might be considered key pests are apple scab of which exceeds that of control. The ET is the pest in the Midwest and eastern United States, damping- population level (just below the EIL) at which control off diseases, potato/tomato early and late blights, options are used to prevent the pest from reaching the seedborne smuts, viral diseases transmitted through EIL. These concepts provided for a decision structure vegetative propagation, early and late leaf spot of focusing on (1) restricting pest populations below lev- peanuts, sigatoga of bananas, root-knot and cyst nem- els causing economic damage and (2) using chemical atodes, Dutch elm disease, chestnut blight, and many or other methods of intervention to prevent economic other diseases both native and exotic. Unlike the in- damage. Although these concepts worked well for sect pests mentioned by Smith and van den Bosch pests that could be counted and whose damage could (1967), some of the diseases just noted do not require be described easily, other pest disciplines were con- chemical controls. In fact, most key pathogens are fronted with pests whose populations were difficult managed by integration of host resistance, sanitation, to count. Moreover, certain pest populations did not certification, fungicides, or nematicides; by rotation cause predictable damage, and damage exceeded ETs or of selection of planting time and tillage; and, most before symptoms became visible. Thus, most pest recently, by use of selected biological control products control practitioners did not identify readily, based on (Figure 1.2). The term key pest is irrelevant to most History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts 13 agricultural weed pest problems because a complex the basic discipline involved is ecology.” This perspec- of weeds occurs in most agricultural fields. The term tive illustrates entomology’s move toward adopting is appropriate, however, for most nematode problems. the conceptual foundation of other pest management Many key insect pests and invasive weed species disciplines. are exotic and require control because their natural The period from the late 1960s to the present has enemies did not migrate with them. But for most established IPM as a desirable pest control strategy plant pathogens, the absence of biological control from the perspectives of both scientific pest control agents is less important than the uniformity of host disciplines and national policy. In 1969, the Nation- susceptibility. In other pest management disciplines, al Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a study en- a second divergence from entomology is that they rare- titled “Principles of Plant and Animal Pest Control,” ly deal with secondary pests. which emphasized systems analysis and computer Secondary pests are those organisms whose popu- simulation modeling and encouraged increased dis- lations normally are maintained below ET by biolog- ciplinary involvement in IPM. The term integrated ical agents but which may be disrupted by pesticide control was used widely in that publication, and the application aimed at key pests. Again, the lexicon for modern IPM concept was envisioned because quanti- IPM was designed for entomology, not for other pest tative ecology is integral to describing the complex of interactions among the multitude of species interacting in crop-pest systems in agriculture. In 1972, a report issued by President Nixon’s Council on Envi- ronmental Quality (CEQ) focused on IPM; the $12.5 million Huffaker Project was the direct result. The CEQ report broadened the scope of IPM, as is evident in the final paragraphs of the report’s summary:

Integrated pest management is an approach which maximizes natural controls of pest populations. An analysis of potential pest problems must be made. Based upon knowledge of each pest in its environment, and its natural enemies, farming practices are modified (such as changes in planting or harvesting schedules) to affect the Figure 1.2. The leaf beetle Diorhabda elongata is the first ap- potential pests adversely and to aid natural ene- proved biological control agent for saltcedar in the mies of the pests. If available, seed which has United States. Photo by Bob Richard, APHIS. Agri- been bred to resist the pests should be planted. cultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Beltsville, Maryland. Once these preventive measures are taken, the fields are monitored to determine the levels of management disciplines although weeds released pests, their natural enemies, and important en- from competition because of herbicidal control of other vironmental factors. Only when the threshold weeds may have parallels to secondary pests de- level at which significant crop damage for the pest scribed by entomologists. Other concepts introduced is likely to be exceeded should suppressive mea- by Smith and van den Bosch (1967), including occa- sures be taken. If these measures are required, sional pests, potential pests, and migrant pests, have then the most suitable technique or combination parallels in the lexicons of other disciplines. Pedigo of techniques, such as biological controls, use of (1972) introduced the term preventive pest manage- pest-specific diseases, and even selective use of ment to cover practices that prevent or avoid pest pesticides, must be chosen to control a pest while outbreaks or maintain pest populations below the ET. causing minimum disruption of its natural Examples of such practices include the use of resis- enemies. tant varieties, crop rotations, selected planting or This approach differs markedly from the tradi- harvesting dates, and many other cultural controls. tional application of pesticides on a fixed sched- In the proceedings of a 1970 national conference on ule. (CEQ 1972) pest management concepts, Rabb and Guthrie (1970, p. 2) stated that “pest management deals primarily In 1977, while instructing the CEQ to recommend with populations, communities, and ecosystems; thus, actions to aid development and implementation of 14 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

IPM techniques, President Carter used this descrip- emphasized the need and potential for both description of IPM in his 1979 environmental message: tive and predictive models in IPM systems. Although authors such as Cate and Hinkle (1994) IPM uses a systems approach to reduce pest dam- have cited Apple and colleagues’ report as the begin- age to tolerable levels through a variety of tech- ning of the change in focus from natural control to niques, including natural predators and para- efficient pesticide use in IPM, the report also reflects sites, genetically resistant hosts, environmental both the limited applicability of “classical biological modifications, and when necessary and appropri- control” to species other than arthropod pests and the ate, chemical pesticides. Integrated Pest Manage- broad base of pest management tactics adopted by ment strategies generally rely first upon biologi- plant pathologists, weed scientists, and nematolo- cal defenses against pests before chemically gists. Also in 1979, the Office of Technology Assess- altering the environment. (Bottrell 1979) ment published an IPM report endorsing the ESCOP During the Carter Administration, the 17-univer- report and, again, supporting systems analysis and sity Consortium for Integrated Pest Management simulation models to establish ET values. (CIPM) was formed and funded to develop and to implement IPM for alfalfa, corn, cotton, and soybean. The Huffaker and the CIPM projects provided the funding to develop new knowledge and a cadre of IPM–trained scientists from all pest control disciplines. Beginning in 1978, the funding of IPM Exten- sion projects in every state resulted in broad recognition of IPM and its concepts at state and national levels (Figure 1.3). Perhaps the most important outcome of federal and state funding for IPM was the establishment of private consultancies and scouting services for producers. The basis of these new businesses was the development of science-based IPM technologies adapted to local situations by means of Extension education programs. The axiom that IPM is site specific and both knowledge and information-intensive bears repeating. Many of the first IPM consultants Figure 1.3. An Extension agent, an agronomist, and a farmer work together as a team to figure out the best meth- gained experience from Extension employment in pi- ods for growing wheat; timely and appropriate weed lot IPM demonstration programs. control measures are critical to conserving scant In 1979, the Experiment Station Committee on soil moisture in a dryland cropping system. Photo Policy (ESCOP) commissioned the Intersociety Con- by Scott Bauer, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. sortium for Plant Protection to produce a report on Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. IPM research. The report, authored by Apple and colleagues (1979), reflected the interdisciplinary com- Formula funding from CES for IPM education position of its writers and provided a new, tactic-neu- (Smith-Lever 3[d] funds) was available to Extension tral definition for IPM. The report stated that IPM crop protection specialists in each state from 1978 is “the optimization of pest control in an economical- onward whereas widespread research funding became ly and ecologically sound manner. This is accom- available only when the CIPM project was terminat- plished by the use of multiple tactics in a compatible ed in 1983 and approximately $3.5 million was redi- manner to maintain pest damage below the econom- rected to regional IPM and biological-control grant ic injury level while providing protection against haz- programs. Federal support for IPM programs at land- ards to humans, animals, plants, and the environ- grant universities was $0.5 million for CES pilot IPM ment” (p. 1). The report offered the interesting projects in 1973 and $1.5 million for regional IPM and insights that “the agroecosystem is not characterized biological control research in 1981. For fiscal year by ‘biological balance,’ but by ‘biological imbalance.’ (FY) 2000, federal funding for pest management pro- And, thus, humankind’s role is not to maintain bio- grams included $10.8 million for IPM Extension im- logical balance of the agroecosystem (in ecological plementation, $9.0 million for minor-use crop pest terms), but to maintain a dynamic state of imbalance management (IR–4) (Figure 1.4), $4.0 million for the that optimizes crop production” (p. 18). The report Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Risk Avoidance History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts 15 and Mitigation Program (RAMP) for cropping sys- search and preventive pest management tactics. The tems, $2.73 million for regional IPM and biological first competitive Extension funding was provided to control research, $1.6 million for pest management the north central region in 1995 and to all regions of alternatives research, $1.0 million for crops at risk the United States in 1996. Starting in 1997, these (CAR) from implementation of the FQPA, and sever- regional IPM grant programs have focused on real million dollars in research funding from the Nation- search and Extension priorities identified by state and al Competitive Grants Program in biologically based regional IPM teams funded by the USDA’s 1995 IPM pest management and other program areas. Addition- Initiative. Still, concern has been expressed about the al funding for IPM-related research and Extension breadth of identified state priorities, which favor en- came from the federal sustainable agriculture pro- tomology heavily. Perhaps this funding emphasis should not be surprising: in 31 states, leadership in IPM programs rests with entomologists; in only 6 states, with pathologists; and in the remaining states, with nondepartmentally affiliated individuals (Gray 1995). Clearly, the best IPM programs evolve from close interdisciplinary cooperation. It is crucial for weed scientists, plant pathologists, and nematologists to be involved with other stakeholders in the priority-setting process in both research and Extension. Since 1996, all regions have provided important incentives to weed scientists to apply for funding, and funding for weed management IPM research through the regional IPM programs increased from less than 10% of funded projects to approximately 25% in 2001. Although most funding still goes to entomology and plant pathology-related projects, funding of weed science is approaching parity with that of other pest management disciplines. Funding from these regional programs was instru- mental in the development of various computer-based decision support software products including the WISDOM computer software program for potatoes (Stevenson et al. 1995), AU-PNUTS for peanuts (Ja- cobi and Backman 1995), WeedSOFT (Mortenson et Figure 1.4. The interagency IRÐ4 program ensures the safety of al. 1999), and many other IPM products. These deci- so-called minor-use chemicals before they are ap- sion support software programs have resulted in sig- proved for commercial agricultural production. A nificant savings for growers and in decreased use of California agronomist displays test-plot-grown broc- pesticides (Martin, Mortensen, and Lindquist 1998). coli that will be used to determine pesticide residue For example, in 1998, implementation of WISDOM is levels. Photo by Scott Bauer. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, estimated to have saved Wisconsin growers of Rus- Maryland. set Burbank potatoes more than $168/acre (a.) (27.4 lb active ingredient pesticide, 123 lb nitrogen, and 5.2 gram. One-half to two-thirds of all projects funded inches of irrigation water/a.) (Connell et al. 1991). by this program are estimated to have been related Although funding for IPM research and implemen- directly to IPM (Jacobsen, B. J. 2002. Personal tation remained fairly static until 1983, in the mid- communication). 1980s IPM research and Extension scientists and Regional grant programs are administered by the practitioners began to discuss methods of increasing USDA–Cooperative State Research, Education, and the biological component relative to the pesticide Extension Service (CSREES) using grant managers management component of IPM programs. Several in the northeastern, north central, southern, and developments stimulated this trend, including new western USDA administrative regions. These region- federal programs emphasizing sustainable agricul- al grant programs emphasize interdisciplinary re- ture, increased resistance to pesticides of all types, 16 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies increased public concerns regarding pesticides and from the USDA and the EPA. The success of this food safety, increased difficulty of registering new broad-based forum could be attributed largely to a pesticides or new use patterns (especially for minor 1991 workshop that contributed to a USDA/EPA joint crops), and increased pressure from growers and prac- analysis of the potential for IPM adoption beginning titioners for new IPM tactics. These issues and fac- in 1990 in the United States. Sponsored by the tors continue to drive efforts to focus new resources Johnson Foundation, the Wingspread Conference fo- on IPM development and implementation and were cused on IPM analysis by private practitioners; uni- directly responsible for the Clinton Administration’s versity, federal, and industry-based scientists; farm- IPM Initiative, an NAS call for investment in EBPM ers; environmental activists; and regulatory personnel (Overton 1996), and a Consumers Union (CU) call for for corn/soybean, cotton, tree fruits, and vegetables. 100% implementation of biointensive IPM by the year Both the potential for IPM to address the economic 2020 (Benbrook et al. 1996). and environmental issues of contemporary agriculture, and the constraints on implementation and adoption of IPM were reported in the 1992 book Food, The Clinton Administration’s Crop Pests, and the Environment: The Need and Po- tential for Biologically Intensive Integrated Pest Man- Integrated Pest Management agement (Zalom and Fry 1992). Initiative As noted in the Congressional Record, on Septem- ber 21, 1993, the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, an Several events led to the June 25, 1993 announce- EPA Administrator, and a U.S. Food and Drug Ad- ment by the Clinton Administration that it was com- ministration (FDA) Deputy Administrator, in joint mitted to decreasing the use of high-risk pesticides testimony for the Clinton Administration, stated be- and to promoting IPM. Key events included an EPA/ fore Congress that “we are setting a goal of develop- USDA joint analysis of IPM’s potential to address ing and implementing IPM programs for 75% of total contemporary issues in agriculture, and the 1992 crop acreage within the next seven years (yr). We National IPM Forum. The recent CU book Pest Man- believe Congress should endorse the goal.” To that agement at the Crossroads (Benbrook et al. 1996) sug- end, the USDA developed in 1994 a strategic plan for gests that the announcement was timed to head off a department-wide IPM initiative with four objectives. the publicity expected to follow the release of the NAS report “Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Chil- dren” (NRC 1993). That report received widespread Objectives of the U.S. Department of coverage and was a major reason for the passage of Agriculture’s Integrated Pest Management the FQPA of 1996, which finally addressed the Initiative Strategic Plan Delaney clause and differentially addressed the dietary risks of pesticide residues to infants and chil- 1. To ensure that the USDA’s IPM programs dren. The Delaney clause in the 1954 Federal Insec- and policies are coordinated effectively ticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act prohibited the across USDA agencies and that cooperation presence of any food additive (e.g., pesticide residue) is facilitated with both public and private that caused cancer in processed foods. Ultimately, non-USDA entities, to meet national goals increasing knowledge of carcinogen dose response for IPM implementation. The key coordinat- data, and technologies allowing residue detection in ing mechanism was to be the USDA’s IPM Pro- the parts per billion or trillion range made the gram Subcommittee, chaired by the USDA’s IPM Delaney clause obsolete. Program Coordinator. The subcommittee had The calls for national leadership in IPM, initially representation from the Agricultural Research issued by the Nixon and the Carter Administrations, Service (ARS); the Animal and Plant Health In- were a consensus of the 1992 National IPM Forum spection Service; the Forest Service; the Farm (Sorenson 1992). That forum, sponsored by the USDA Services Administration; the Agricultural Mar- and the EPA, involved more than 600 individuals in- keting Service; the National Resources Conserva- cluding scientists; regulators; food processors, mar- tion Service; the CSREES; the Economic Research keters, and other agribusiness people; environmen- Service (ERS); the National Agricultural Statis- tal and other public policy activists; and farmers from tics Service (NASS); the Office of Budget and Pol- throughout the United States. Participants includ- icy Analysis; and the EPA. This broad-based ed Congressional staff and leading administrators working group was to be developed to ensure co- History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts 17

ordination of federal research, education, and reg- grant universities (Jacobsen, B. J. 2002. Personal ulatory programs with the land grant university communication). and locally based USDA programs in every state. The Clinton Administration first requested in- 2. To establish and to conduct a process for creased budget support for the IPM Initiative in FY identifying the IPM implementation needs 1996. In that period, Congress appropriated increased of producers and to provide necessary sup- funding of $1.6 million for one component of the IPM port and resources with which to conduct a Initiative—the Pest Management Alternatives Pro- coordinated program of research, develop- gram (PMAP)—but did not fund the other portions of ment, and delivery of education and infor- the initiative. Funding for the USDA’s complete IPM mation in order to meet producers’ IPM im- Initiative again was requested in the executive bud- plementation needs. get in FYs 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, but Congress appropriated only limited increases. These primari- 3. To develop methods and to conduct pro- ly addressed needs created by the FQPA legislation grams accurately measuring progress to- and included increases for the PMAP, the CAR from ward the 75% IPM goal and assessing IPM FQPA Implementation, and FQPA Risk Mitigation for implementation effects (as measured in Major Food Crops, the USDA–ARS Areawide IPM terms of economic, environmental, public program, and the IPM activities of the ERS and the health, and other social factors) on both NASS. The total investment requested for IPM and public and private sectors. related programs in FY 2000 was $366 million—$68 4. To implement a stakeholder-centered com- million more than was appropriated in the FY 1996 munication and information exchange pro- budget, the first year of the Clinton Administration gram in order to increase public and policy- IPM Initiative. maker understanding of the objectives, progress, and effects of the USDA’s IPM Ini- tiative (USDA 1994, cited in and adapted from The Environmental Protection Fitzner 1996). Agency Initiative Unlike those European governments that mandated use-reduction strategies in the early 1990s, the Whereas the USDA has focused on farmer devel- United States adopted, through the USDA and the opment and implementation of IPM programs that EPA, objectives regarding the decrease of risks from identify stakeholder needs and priorities and devel- pesticide use and the development of more sustain- op new pest management tools to replace pesticides able agricultural-production strategies. Evidence rendered obsolete due to regulation or to voluntary suggests that the European strategy resulted prima- registrant cancellation, the EPA has focused on its rily in the substitution of lower-use-rate pesticides for Pesticide Use/Risk Reduction Initiative. This initia- higher-use-rate pesticides rather than in the adoption tive has three basic components: (1) discouraging the of a greater variety of pest management strategies. use of high-risk pesticides, (2) providing incentives for In 1995, an increase of $25,000 in Smith-Lever 3(d) development and commercialization of safer products, pest management education funding was provided to and (3) encouraging use of alternative control meth- each state and territory to work with farmers and ods, thereby decreasing reliance on toxic and/or per- other stakeholders to identify and to prioritize needs sistent chemicals. Designated the lead division for for IPM implementation regarding key commodities EPA, the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Di- in each state. More than 4,250 customers, including vision (BPPD) initiated two programs addressing the 3,205 farmers, were engaged in identifying priority components of the initiative. research and Extension needs for IPM implementa- First, the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship tion at the state level. In addition to the state-level Program (PESP) works with more than 114 commod- needs assessment process, 23 production-region IPM ity and pesticide user groups in a voluntary partner- teams in 44 states identified IPM needs for crop pro- ship promoting IPM adoption. The BPPD has provid- duction regions. These teams included 154 farmers ed grants to support on-farm research and or crop consultants, 36 food processors or marketers, demonstration projects, including funding of commod- state- and national-level commodity organizations, ity groups to identify a descriptive set of IPM elements agribusinesses, USDA and EPA field personnel, and so that farmers can score their own levels of IPM im- research and Extension faculty at cooperating land- plementation. Second, the PESP has expedited reg- 18 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies istration of biopesticides and other decreased-risk and from decision rules based on a count of practices chemicals including pheromones. In 1995, the EPA indicative of IPM was that approximately 50% of U.S. set the following goals for the year 2005: (1) illegal crop acreage was already under IPM. (Approximate- residues detected in FDA monitoring will be decreased ly 5 to 15% of surveyed acres were described as un- 25% from current levels, (2) a significant decrease in der “low-level IPM,” e.g., scouting and pesticide ap- use of pesticides with the highest potential for carci- plications based on ET; 25 to 35%, as under nogenic effects on food crops will occur, (3) no instanc- “medium-level IPM,” e.g., low level plus one to two ad- es will occur, in either adults or children, in which a ditional practices indicative of IPM; and 20 to 30%, pesticide reference dose is exceeded, (4) IPM will be as under “high-level IPM,” e.g., low level plus three used on all but 10% of crop acreage and pesticide us- or more practices indicative of IPM.) The USDA re- age and (5) biological pesticides deemed safe will be port, although based primarily on practices related to used on twice as many acres as in 1995 (EPA 1995). pesticide use, was the first attempt to assess on a The Clinton Administration, through the USDA/ national basis the adoption of IPM across a wide range EPA initiatives, proposed a structure that, if funded of crops. by Congress, would provide for IPM systems devel- In 1999, the NASS published a summary of pest opment and implementation based on the identified management practices used by farmers in 1998. This needs of farmers and other stakeholders. This IPM summary used the PAMS paradigm for IPM practic- initiative also would provide farmers and other pes- es, a paradigm helping researchers examine utiliza- ticide users with biologically based pest management tion of IPM practices across crops and regions. Us- tools and a fast track for registration of biopesticides ing the PAMS descriptors, the survey showed that and biological control agents. Certain nongovernmen- multiple tactics were used on more than 40% of bar- tal organizations criticized the federal strategy for ley and wheat acres, on more than 50% of corn acres, being pest management strategy-neutral instead of on more than 50% of cotton acres, and on more than emphasizing biological controls. It can be argued, 40% of soybean acres. In comparison, multiple IPM however, that the strategy-neutral course has been tactics were used on more than 70% of fruit and nut adopted to reassure farmers and others that they will be provided with proven tools for pest management Consumers Union IPM Continuum so that they can move along the continuum from pesticide intensive systems to biologically intensive sys- No Transitonal Systems High, or IPM Low Medium Biointensive IPM tems while maintaining profitability and managing 0Ð1 1Ð3 3Ð5 5+ risk. The success of this strategy can be seen by the Reliance on Prevention Relative to Treatment fact that the primary increases in the IPM budget Measured by “IPM System Ratio” Values = PPP divided by DAAT portfolio enacted by Congress and supported by farm- PPP = Preventive Practice Points (points assigned to prevention based practices) ers since 1996 have been the FQPA-related programs DAAT = Dose-adjusted Acre Treatments (measure of pesticide application intensity/a.) PMAP, CAR, and RAMP. USDA IPM Continuum As has been indicated, the concept of a pest man- No Transitonal Systems High, or agement continuum has been described and refined IPM Low Medium Biointensive IPM many times in the last 35 yr. At the Third National Number of Practices Irrespective of Treatment IPM Symposium Workshop, held in Washington, D.C. No scouting; primary Scouting plus Scouting plus Scouting plus reliance on pesticides threshold-based thresholds, plus one thresholds, plus three in 1996, a representative of the World Wildlife Fund pesticide application or two IPM elements or more IPM elements (WWF) presented the IPM continuum on which Fig- ure 1.5. is based in part (Jacobsen 1997). Originally Examples of Prevention-Based Practices or IPM Elements published by the CU, this continuum, in that it em- No Transitonal Systems High, or phasizes shifting reliance from treatments based on IPM Low Medium Biointensive IPM Scouting, crop rotation, Weather-based prediction Beneficials, biocontrol scouting and ETs to prevention and biologically inten- disease-free seed, pest- models, nutrient and water agents, pheromones, trap resistant varieties, monitoring, green manures, crops, soil solarization, sive interventions, differs from that used by the USDA cultivation, attractant composts, precision interactive pest/weather and described by Vandeman and colleagues (1994), baits/crops, selective agriculture-based treatments, /crop models, primary pesticides, edge induced resistance activators, reliance on preventative who studied practices indicative of an IPM approach treatment, sprayer refugia, pest biotype monitoring nonchemical practices for selected field and vegetable crops. Covering the period 1990 to 1993 and conducted by the ERS, the Figure 1.5. Comparison of Consumers Union and USDA IPM Vandeman et al. study determined for the USDA what Continuums, and examples of IPM elements or pre- the baseline was for the 75% goal. The baseline, con- vention-based practices characteristic of low, me- structed from survey data available from 1990 to 1993 dium, and high IPM. History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts 19 acres and on 78% of vegetable acres. These findings the NAS, massive investment will be required to build are important because they concern the crops most the ecological knowledge base needed for the multi- dependent on pesticide use and thus the focus of tude of cropping systems, environments, and pest FQPA calculations regarding potential pesticide-res- complexes constituting U.S. agriculture. In all pest idues and risks to children. In 1998, acreage under disciplines, this knowledge base is incomplete for most medium- to high-level IPM implementation increased pests, and the development of interdisciplinary, agro- while acreage under low-level IPM implementation economically and pest-complex-based system knowl- for most crops increased to levels approaching 70% or edge has just begun. slightly greater. An assessment of IPM adoption is The authors of this Council for Agricultural Science necessary if documentation of the effects of federal, and Technology report support the goals of EBPM but state, and private investment in IPM is to be under- feel that they should be viewed as long-term strate- taken. The CU continuum is founded on an ecologi- gic goals and thus as achievable only through collab- cally based set of factors accounting for both preven- oration with farmers and through encouragement of tive and treatment-oriented IPM practices. progression along the IPM continuum. Only through such movement will the necessary public/private financial and regulatory support be developed. Lack Call for Ecologically Based, or of success by the Clinton Administration in achieving fairly modest funding increases for the USDA/ Biointensive, Pest Management EPA IPM Initiative illustrated the new dynamics of In 1996, the NAS published the book Ecologically federal funding for research and Extension education Based Pest Management—New Solutions for a New and demonstrated that the investments needed to Century (Overton 1996). Prepared at the request of achieve EBPM were unlikely to be made at that time. the USDA, the EPA, and the Board on Agriculture, Pest disciplines, economists, ecologists, sociologists, the book focused on the need for additional sustain- public interest groups, and, most important, farmers able pest management strategies and emphasized would have to develop new dialogues and blueprints that strategies should be based on ecological princi- for interdisciplinary funding. ples. The objective of the book, as of the CU’s Pest As farmers progress along the IPM continuum, Management at the Crossroads (Benbrook et al. 1996), they develop confidence in relatively basic IPM tac- was to shift the current IPM paradigm from focusing tics and techniques before moving to more complex on pest management strategies relying all too often ones. This observation is supported by IPM adoption on pesticide management to a systems approach re- research done by Sorenson and Stewart (2000). Farm- lying primarily on biological knowledge of pests and ers also are leaders in calling for new research and their interactions with crops. In EBPM, or biointen- technology transfer programs, as evidenced by the sive, IPM systems, knowledge of the managed ecosys- stakeholder inputs required by the USDA’s IPM stra- tem and its natural processes suppressing pest pop- tegic plan and expressed at the five regional IPM ulations is essential; intervention with pesticides or workshops sponsored in 1993 by the National Foun- with physical or biological supplementation comes dation for IPM Education (Goodell and Zalom 2000). later. All parties calling for a new pest-management Clear examples are found among apple, potato, grape, paradigm have called for increased investment in re- and cotton growers, who are widely considered the search to develop the required biological and ecologi- most advanced implementers of IPM. cal knowledge bases. Differences in the NAS’s and the CU’s calls for IPM paradigms are more than nominal. Pest Management Integrated Pest Management in at the Crossroads calls for accelerated movement along the pest management continuum and for imple- the Twenty-First Century mentation of existing IPM knowledge and tools. The In March 1999, North Carolina State University CU-sponsored book sets specific goals (e.g., 75% of (NCSU) hosted a second international IPM conference crop acreage under medium- to high-level IPM by (Kennedy and Sutton 2000). Unlike the 1970 confer- 2010 [Benbrook et al. 1996]) that are attainable in ence, which had focused on insect-pest management, large part, with modest investments, given current the 1999 conference embraced multidisciplinary IPM estimates that 25 to 65% of crop acreage is at the concepts that had evolved out of the basic concepts medium-plus level of IPM (Benbrook et al. 1996; Van- and principles developed by entomologists in the deman et al. 1994). To attain EBPM as described by 1960s. The 1999 NCSU conference identified IPM as 20 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies the key contemporary crop-protection paradigm. Its grow almost any crop (with the exception of certain impact on agriculture and the factors affecting its fruits and vegetables); for its part, the federal govern- adoption were addressed, and its potential to increase ment worked aggressively in the international mar- profitability while helping to decrease both negative ketplace to ensure free and fair access for U.S. com- environmental agricultural effects and human risks modities. World surplus production in feed grains, from pesticides was demonstrated. The strategy suc- cotton, and oilseeds, heavily subsidized production, ceeded by encouraging an array of crop-protection lack of free and fair market access, and economic tur- strategies. Information was presented in light of the moil are major factors contributing to the lowest com- assumption that ever-greater interdisciplinary in- modity prices in recent history. Thin to nonexistent volvement, including that of the social sciences, would profit margins have increased the importance of risk be necessary to address future changes in agricul- management for producers, especially in light of the ture—if IPM was to be addressed on an agroecosys- availability of crop insurance. tem basis. Numerous speakers emphasized that Because insurance companies require production greater progress in IPM implementation would re- histories, the crop rotation/pest management oppor- quire increasingly careful attention to applied aspects tunities made possible by the 1995 Farm Bill have of ecology so that multiple trophic layers within agro- been diminished or even eliminated for farmers with ecosystems could be understood. Further implemen- no production history for new crops. Additionally, for tation of biological controls by means of microbes certain crop producers, the 50% insurance product would require basic research in microecology of all provides inadequate risk management. But without plant surfaces, including the rhizosphere. actuarial data regarding the efficacy of specific pro- Speakers at the NCSU IPM Conference empha- duction practices, insurers are uncertain about the sized that the rate of change and the challenges for financial viability of offering insurance products cov- crop producers were increasing and that these factors ering 65 to 85% of expected yields. Integrated Pest would influence IPM. Factors in this increasingly Management certification may enhance the market- dynamic economic and sociological flux included ability of such products. The relation between IPM changes in federal farm-policy, decreased availabili- and crop insurance is likely to be an important issue ty of economic safety nets for producers, increased in the near future, and producers may be encouraged farm size, increased consumer involvement, nongov- to increase IPM implementation as a result of the risk ernmental groups and other nontraditional groups’ management afforded by insurance products. wishing to influence farm and pesticide policies, im- The effect of biotechnology on agriculture and on portance of the global marketplace and reliable infor- IPM in particular was highlighted by many speakers mation services, biotechnology, and public disinvest- at the 1999 NCSU conference. Significant progress ment in research and Extension education supplied was documented in terms of not only genetically en- by the land-grant university system. gineered crops but also highly sensitive diagnostic Although these factors are global and IPM concepts technologies for detection or identification of pests, general, speakers emphasized that applications were pesticide-resistant insects or pathogens, and insecti- site specific and that producers needed solutions and cide residues. These new technologies will play an reliable, unbiased information services that were ap- increasingly important role in IPM implementation plicable to local situations. Since the 1970 NCSU and regulation. conference, successful establishment of a crop consult- The use of transgenic pest- or pesticide-resistant ant industry throughout the United States has been crops, a.k.a., genetically modified organisms (GMOs), an important advance in IPM implementation. Ex- has had a major effect on IPM. Acreage on which this cellent ideas regarding future directions for the IPM technology has been implemented has expanded log- paradigm are discussed by Goodell and Zalom (2000), arithmically in the past 5 yr, and environmental ef- Sorenson and Stewart (2000), and Merrigan (2000), fects have been considerable. For example, cotton and all of whom address the importance of risk manage- corn plants expressing one or more insecticidal endot- ment as part of the IPM adoption equation. oxin proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were planted on 20 and 22% of acres, respectively, in 1998, Risk Management compared with 5 and 13% of acres, respectively, in Risk management currently is an emphasis of farm 1997. Crops modified for herbicide tolerance have policy discussions. As a result of the 1995 Farm Bill, implementation figures increasing even more dramat- farmers could, in exchange for loss of price supports, ically from 1997 to 1998, with GMO corn acreage in- History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts 21 creasing from 2 to 11%; GMO soybean acreage, from nation and seedling emergence. To achieve IPM, 10 to 48%; and GMO cotton acreage from 5 to 34% EBPM, or biointensive IPM, each IPM discipline must (USDA–NASS 1999). These developments have consider such tactics to be elements in an IPM con- brought about dramatically decreased pesticide use. tinuum that growers implement by applying informa- For example, it is estimated that the use of Bt trans- tion gained from other disciplines. The interdiscipli- genic cotton resulted in the use of 300,000 fewer gal- nary research and Extension education needed to lons of insecticide in 1997 than in 1995. The increased achieve IPM goals will require focusing on growers’ usages of these GMOs were even more striking for implementation needs and not simply on high-quali- 2002, with GMO acreages increasing to 74% for soy- ty, single-disciplinary science or Extension education. bean, 71% for cotton, and 32% for field corn (Cornell To be successful in implementing IPM, team members Cooperative Extension 2002). must come from areas outside the pest disciplines. Herbicide-tolerant crops and GMO crop plants ex- Implementation will require partnerships among pressing plant protection proteins constitute the first economists, sociologists, ecologists, horticulturalists, wave of transgenic crops; plants expressing quality agronomists, agricultural engineers, geographic infor- factors such as improved protein, oil, starch, or pro- mation specialists, food processors, crop consultants, cessing characteristics will constitute the next wave, pesticide applicators, regulatory agents, computer followed by plants that will be factories for specific scientists, consumers, agribusinesses such as food products such as vaccines and proteins. More than providers, members of public-policy interest groups, 70% of USDA GMO permits issued are for herbicide- and—most important—farmers. tolerant or insect-resistant crops (Bridges 2000). This One of the most compelling IPM success stories is emphasis on pest control through the use of GMOs that of the Campbell Soup Company’s IPM implemen- puts in perspective clearly the importance of GMOs tation with growers/suppliers in Florida, California, and their development to future IPM programs. Ohio, Michigan, Texas, New Jersey, and Mexico. In The effect of GMOs on IPM has come with real as early 1989, the corporation made IPM implementa- well as perceived costs. Real costs have been associ- tion a priority. By diffusing among their growers IPM ated with decreases in scouting by growers and in the research from plant pathology and entomology, the use of multiple tactics, and thus with new problems company helped decrease pesticide use approximately arising from altered agroecosystems. Decreased 50% by 1994, without loss of yield or quality (Bolkan scouting has been noted by growers using Bt trans- and Rienert 1994). Keys to success were the epide- genic cotton varieties. As growers come to rely on miological models for early blight and anthracnose of genetic resistance as a means of pest management, tomato, for septoria and cercospora blight of celery, they often perceive resistance as a “silver bullet” and for use of resistant varieties, for the epidemiology of ignore the potential for problems associated with sin- gemini viruses, and for the biology of the vector white gle-tactic pest management strategies. Use of herbi- fly populations. The company program addressed cine-tolerant cotton cultivars has resulted in in- weeds, arthropods, and pathogens by emphasizing creased aphid activity associated, for instance, with cultural practices, environmental and pest monitor- early weed flushes and sudden elimination of habi- ing, and economically/ecologically based pesticide tat (Bridges 2000). application. Similar IPM success stories have been Although the term IPM is familiar to many grow- documented for potato, cotton, sweetcorn, soybean, ers, most still cannot define it confidently. Neverthe- and most fruit and nut crops. less, growers identify with the IPM tactics or elements From their inceptions, the most successful IPM described by the PAMS concept. Examples of tactics programs have emphasized interdisciplinary teams growers identify with are rotating; scouting; monitor- and grower involvement. The recent use of IPM la- ing temperature/humidity or other environmental beling by the State of Massachusetts and by Weg- variables to predict disease, crop growth, irrigation man’s grocery chain in New York state has depended needs, or weed emergence; predicting EIL by means on growers’ defining how a product qualifies as IPM of insect growth models; applying fungicides or bac- grown. The definition agreed to by Wegman contract tericides; using certified seed, disease-resistant vari- growers was more restrictive than that proposed by eties, high-quality seeds or sanitation; controlling al- the State of New York (Cornell University) IPM team ternative or overwintering hosts; controlling pests of researchers and Extension educators (Tette, J. biologically; managing plant fertility and water; and 1997. Personal communication). This fact suggests planting under favorable conditions for rapid germi- that growers will implement IPM if it helps them 22 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies market products. A more recent example is the coa- PMAP Pest Management Alternatives Pro- lition between the WWF and Wisconsin potato grow- gram ers, whereby growers meeting certain IPM standards RAMP Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Crop- are allowed to market potatoes with the WWF panda ping Systems logo. Whether IPM labeling will contribute to IPM USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture adoption is yet to be seen. Although consumer demand for organic foods has been increasing rapidly, WWF World Wildlife Fund Merrigan (2000) questions the potential impact of yr year IPM labeling. Appendix B. Glossary Appendix A. Abbreviations and Avoidance. The practice of using cultural techniques Acronyms to avoid losses to pests that could be present in a field. a. acre Economic injury level. The pest population level ARS Agricultural Research Service capable of producing damage, the cost of which ex- BPPD Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention ceeds that of control. Division Economic threshold. The pest population level Bt Bacillus thuringiensis (just below the EIL) at which control options are CAR crops at risk (from implementation of used to prevent the pest from reaching the EIL. the Food Quality Protection Act) Integrated control. Applied pest control that combines and integrates biological and chemical CEQ Council on Environmental Quality controls. CES Cooperative Extension Service Integrated pest management. “A strategy that CIPM Consortium for Integrated Pest Manage- uses various combinations of pest control meth- ment ods, biological, cultural, and chemical in a com- CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, patible manner to achieve satisfactory control and and Extension Service ensure favorable economic and environmental CU Consumers Union consequences” (Bellinger and Rowe 2002). Key pest. “A serious, perennially occurring species EBPM ecologically based pest management that dominates control practices because in the EIL economic injury level absence of deliberate control by man, the pest pop- EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ulation usually remains above the economic inju- ERS Economic Research Service ry levels” (Smith and van den Bosch, p. 295). ESCOP Experiment Station Committee on Pol- Monitoring. The practice of observing pest popula- icy tions, weather, and nutrients. Pests. Arthropods and rodents, as well as pathogens, ET economic threshold weeds, and nematodes, that are economically or FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration aesthetically damaging to other organisms. FQPA Food Quality Protection Act Prevention. The practice of keeping a pest popula- FY fiscal year tion from infesting a crop or field. GMO genetically modified organism Preventive pest management. Practices that prevent or avoid pest outbreaks or maintain pest pop- IPM integrated pest management ulations below the economic threshold. NAS National Academy of Sciences Secondary pests. Those organisms whose popula- NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service tions normally are maintained below the economic NCSU North Carolina State University threshold by biological agents but which may be PAMS prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and disrupted by pesticide application aimed at key suppression pests. Suppression. The practice of using cultural, physi- PESP Pesticide Environmental Stewardship cal, biological, or pesticidal means to suppress Program pest populations. History of Integrated Pest Management Concepts 23

Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. 513 pp. Literature Cited Martin, A. R., D. A. Mortensen, and J. L. Lindquist. 1998. Deci- sion support models for weed management: In-field management tools. Pp. 363–369. In J. L. Hatfield, D. D. Buhler, and Apple, J. L., P. S. Benepal, R. Berger, G. Bird, and W. G. Ruesink. B. A. Stewart (eds.). Integrated Weed and Soil Management. 1979. Integrated pest management: A program of research for Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. the state agricultural experiment stations and colleges of 1890. Merrigan, K. A. 2000. Politics, policy, and IPM. Pp. 497–504. In Intersociety Consortium for Plant Protection for the Experiment G. C. Kennedy and T. E. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies Station Committee on Organization and Policy, Raleigh, North for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Im- Carolina. 190 pp. plementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. 513 pp. Bellinger, R. G. and R. C. Rowe. 2002. Integrated pest manage- Mortensen, D. A., A. R. Martin, F. A. Roeth, T. E. Harvill, R. W. ment (IPM), (22 May 2002) D. J. Lyon, P. J. Shea, and J. T. Rawlinson. 1999. weedSOFTSM Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth, J. M. Halloran, M. K. Hansen, and S. (Version 4.1). Department of Agronomy, University of Nebras- Marquardt. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. Con- ka, Lincoln. sumers Union, Yonkers, New York. 272 pp. National Academy of Sciences. 1969. Principles of Plant and An- Bolkan, H. A. and W. R. Reinert. 1994. Developing and implement- imal Pest Control. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. ing IPM strategies to assist farmers: An industry approach. 508 pp. Plant Dis 78:545–550. National Research Council (NRC). 1993. Pesticides in the diets of Bottrell, D. G. 1979. Integrated pest management. Council on infants and children. National Academy Press, Washington, Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, D.C. Washington, D.C. Office of Technology Assessment. 1979. Pest Management Strate- Bridges, D. C. 2000. Implications of pest-resistant/herbicide-tol- gies in Crop Protection. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- erant plants on IPM. Pp. 141–153. In G. C. Kennedy and T. E. ington, D.C. 204 pp. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for IPM: Concepts, Re- Overton, J. (ed.). 1996. Ecologically Based Pest Management: New search, and Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. Solutions for a New Century. National Academy Press, Wash- 513 pp. ington, D.C. 144 pp. Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company, Bos- Pedigo, L. P. 1972. Integrating preventive and therapeutic tac- ton, Massachusetts. tics in soybean insect management. Pp. 10–19. In L. C. Cop- Cate, J. R. and M. K. Hinkle. 1994. Integrated pest management: ping, M. B. Green, and R. T. Rees (eds.). Pest Management in The path of a paradigm. U.S. Government Printing Office, Soybeans. Elsevier Science Publishers, London. 388 pp. Washington, D.C. Rabb, R. L. and Guthrie, F. E. (eds.). 1970. Concepts of pest man- Coble, H. 1998. A new tool for measuring the resilience of IPM agement. Proceedings. North Carolina State University, Ra- systems: The PAMS diversity index. In E. Day (ed.). Integrat- leigh. 242 pp. ed Pest Management Measurement Systems Workshop, (22 May 295–340. In W. Kilgore and R. Doutt (eds.). Pest Control: Bio- 2002) logical, Physical, and Selected Chemical Methods. Academic Connell, T. R., J. P. Koenig, W. R. Stevenson, K. A. Kelling, D. Press, New York. Curwen, J. A. Wyman, and L. K. Binning. 1991. An integrated Sorenson, A. A. (ed.). 1992. Proceedings of the National Integrat- systems approach to potato crop management. J Prod Agric ed Pest Management Forum. American Farmland Trust, Wash- 4:453–460. ington, D.C. 86 pp. Cornell Cooperative Extension. 2002. Genetically engineered or- Sorenson, A. and P. A. Stewart. 2000. Factors affecting adoption ganisms—GE food in the market. Homepage, < http://www.geo- of new technologies. Pp. 12–31. In G. C. Kennedy and T. E. pie.cornell.edu > (23 January 2003) Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Man- Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1972. Integrated pest agement: Concepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, management. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, St. Paul, Minnesota. 513 pp. D.C. 41 pp. Stern, V. M., R. F. Smith, R. van Den Bosch, and K. S. Hagen. 1959. Fitzner, M. 1996. Integrated pest management: Backgrounder, The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81–101. Stevenson, W. R., L. K. Binning, J. A. Wyman, and D. Curwen. (22 May 2002) 1995. Integrated Pest Management WISDOM: Professional Goodell, P. B. and F. G. Zalom. 2000. Delivering IPM: Progress Software for Agricultural Systems. (Version 1.0). University and challenges. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). of Wisconsin Integrated Pest Management Program, Madison. Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management, Con- 101 pp. cepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Minnesota. Service (USDA–NASS). 1999. Pest management practices: Gray, M. E. 1995. Status of CES–IPM programs: Results of a 1998 summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. national IPM coordinators survey. Am Entomol 41:136–138. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 35 pp. Jacobi, J. C. and P. A. Backman. 1995. AU-Pnuts leafspot adviso- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Partners for ry 1: Development of a weather-based system to time leafspot pesticide stewardship. EPA–730–F–95–002. Division of Pre- fungicide applications. Plant Dis 79:666–671. vention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Jacobsen, B. J. 1997. Role of plant pathology and integrated pest Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. management. Annu Rev Phytopathol 35:373–391. Vandeman, A., J. Fernandez-Cornejo, S. Jans, and B. H. Lin. 1994. Kennedy, G. C. and Sutton, T. E. (eds.). 2000. Emerging Technol- Adoption of integrated pest management in U.S. agriculture. ogies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and 24 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Informational Bulletin Number 707. Economic Research Ser- summary.html> (22 May 2002) vice, Washington, D.C. 26 pp. North Carolina State University. 2002. Homepage, (22 May 2002) Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Southern Illinois University University of California. 2002. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville. Education Program, Zalom, F. G. and W. E. Fry. 1992. Food, Crop Pests, and the Envi- (22 May 2002) ronment: The Need and Potential for Biologically Intensive In- University of California–Davis. 2002. IPM online, 6 May, (22 May 2002) University of Nebraska–Lincoln. 2002. The internet center for wildlife damage management, Related Web Sites (22 May 2002) U.S. Department of Agriculture–Cooperative State Research, Ed- Gempler’s Incorporated. 2002. IPM almanac, (22 May 2002) January, (22 May 2002) International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences. 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Rules and regula- Homepage, (22 May 2002) tions, 15 May, (22 May National Academy Press. 2002. Ecologically based pest man- 2002) agement,

2 Integrated Pest Management Toolbox

The components of operational integrated pest tion, infection, or spread; and where the pest is intro- management (IPM) include (1) biological and environ- duced with propagation material, soil, water, or plant mental monitoring, (2) decision-support systems, (3) debris. decisions, (4) procedure implementation, and (5) out- Quarantines and inspections are tools used by income evaluation (Barker and Koenning 1998; ternational, national, state, or local governments to Kennedy and Sutton 2000). Central to implementa- prevent introduction of pests not known to be present tion is the availability of effective strategies and tac- (Agrios 1997). Every country has quarantine laws to tics for managing single and multiple pest infesta- protect their agriculture and plants from invasive tions. Overall pest management plans, or strategies, pests. When based on science, properly implemented to eliminate or to minimize pest problems include quarantines and inspections are highly effective and exclusion or avoidance techniques such as (1) quar- economical. Additional introduced foreign plant dis- antines, (2) eradication, (3) suppression through host eases or pathogens include chestnut blight which dev- resistance, pesticide, or biological control use, and (4) astated American chestnuts in the eastern and cen- limitation or prevention by means of host tolerance tral United States, white pine blister rust, downy or related tactics. The many tactics, or specific tools, mildew of grape in Europe, coffee rust in South Amer- used under one or more strategies continue to evolve ica, citrus canker in the United States and South and are the focus of this chapter. Typically, on a spe- America, soybean cyst nematode, and new aggressive cific crop a complex set of pests needs to be controlled, strains of the potato late blight fungus in the United and integration of specific tools from each of the five States and Europe. Examples of important intro- basic strategies is required for effective pest manage- duced insect pests include European corn borer, Med- ment. Determination of which set of tools to use in iterranean fruit fly, Asian long-horned beetle, wheat IPM depends on understanding of the pest life cycle; stem sawfly, Russian wheat aphid, imported fire ant, influence of both biotic and abiotic environments on Africanized honeybee, brown citrus aphid, soybean pest population dynamics; the pest loss potential the aphid, and gypsy moth. Many weeds, including dif- crop-value relations; the pest presence or absence; and fuse and spotted knapweed and leafy spurge, are of the availability of pest-resistant cultivars, registered foreign origin. Each of these disasters could have been pesticides, or biological controls and other tools. prevented had the pest cycle been understood and timely, science-based quarantine and inspection procedures implemented. Exclusion/Avoidance In the United States, the Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 provides the legal framework for quarantine Pests requiring no control inputs are the most eco- programs operated by the U.S. Department of Agri- nomical to control; strategies excluding the pest from culture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection a production area are, therefore, important. As dis- Service (APHIS 2003). The Food and Agriculture Or- cussed in the last section of this chapter, many of the ganization (FAO) of the United Nations provides tech- most damaging pathogens, insects, and weeds have nical services and a forum to resolve quarantine dis- been introduced into the U.S. from other countries putes between countries. Their respective web sites (Waterworth 1993). Examples include Dutch elm dis- provide extensive information about FAO and ease and its vector, the European elm bark beetle; USDA–APHIS programs ( and potato cyst nematode; witchweed (Striga asiatica); ). APHIS has inspectors in Russian knapweed, and many others. Several tech- other countries to pre-inspect shipments to the Unit- niques are used to exclude pests. These techniques ed States and to maintain inspections at all port of are effective in areas where the pest is absent; where entry. When entering the United States, foreign trav- conditions do not favor pest establishment, reproduc- elers experience questionnaires and luggage inspec-

25 26 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies tion for contraband plant materials, soils, etc. Addi- on peas and beans; in this way, high-risk fields can tionally, APHIS maintains quarantine facilities be avoided by growers. Integrating certified disease- where imported plant materials are observed and test- free foundation seed with unfavorable environments ed for pathogens and insect pests over varying peri- for pathogen dispersal allows producers to grow beans ods before release. Although quarantines and inspec- free of bacterial blight and fungal anthracnose patho- tions are highly effective, they have been used as gens. Although these diseases can be devastating in justifications for what are, essentially, trade barriers. wet environments, the crop can be grown there if dis- APHIS (2003) provides an extensive list (and status) ease-free seed is used. Testing seed to ensure the of the U.S. quarantines involving pests, plants, and absence of seedborne pathogens is a crucial step for animals. Currently, the World Trade Organization many vegetable crops including crucifers (cabbage, requires a scientific basis for application of both pest broccoli, cauliflower, etc.), beans, peas, lettuce, and management tools. tomatoes. For certain diseases, only 1 infected seed In addition to quarantines and inspections, exclu- in 10,000 seeds can result in an epidemic. Planting sion methods include production of certified disease- wheat after the Hessian fly-free period has dramati- free planting materials, and methods of avoiding or cally decreased damage in winter wheat from this evading pests or their vectors (Agrios 1997; Hollings pest. Planting winter wheat late in the planting sea- 1965; Kahn 1991). The use of certified disease-free son decreases the likelihood for transmission of bar- planting stock is the foundation disease control meth- ley yellow dwarf virus by aphids, and wheat streak od for any plant that is propagated vegetatively. Gen- mosaic virus by wheat curl mites. erally any viral, viroid, phytoplasma, vascular bacte- Other pest-avoidance strategies include removal of rial or fungal pathogen, or nematode present in the overwintering hosts, planting on “new” land not in- mother plant can be expected to be transferred via fested with soilborne pathogens, planting in soils with cutting, rhizomes, tubers, buds, rootstocks etc. Cer- a pH unfavorable to disease development, and grow- tification programs have had tremendous impact on ing plants under conditions excluding vectors or oth- crops such as potato, tree and small fruits, citrus, and erwise unfavorable to pest development. For exam- ornamentals, including roses, geranium, carnation ple, avoiding poorly drained soils where there are and chrysanthemum. Use of pathogen-free propaga- “water mold” or root-rot pathogens such as Pythium, tion material is the foundation of pest management Phytophthoram, or Aphanomyces spp. is a problem programs for these crops. Pathogen-free certification basic to controlling disease, as is maintaining humid- programs are often operated by state agencies, focus ities below 95% in greenhouses to control Botrytis on specific pathogens, and may have precise toleranc- gray mold. So that damping-off diseases can be mea- es for individual pathogens. For example, potato cer- sured, high-vigor seeds are planted routinely under tification programs generally have a zero tolerance for conditions that favor rapid germination, emergence, ring rot or cyst nematode and 0.1–5% for certain vi- and plant establishment. For these techniques to be rus and fungal diseases. Requirements to use zero tol- used effectively, the germination and vigor potential erance foundation seed in production of certified seed, of seeds must be known, as well as temperature and field inspections, serological tests for pathogens, stor- moisture requirements for germination. age inspections, winter growouts, and limited gener- Storage problems can be avoided by storage under ation propagation from foundation stock have made conditions unfavorable for growth and reproduction the potato certification programs a critical part of po- of storage insects, fungi, and bacteria (Christensen tato-disease management programs. and Meronuck 1986; Dennis 1983). For fruits and Typically, pest infestations are avoided by growing vegetables, this may mean refrigerated storage where propagation material under environmental conditions free moisture is avoided. This technique is used com- not favoring pest /pathogen spread /increase, or by monly to prevent losses from soft rot bacteria, and planting crops under conditions allowing development fungi such as Sclerotinia and Botrytis. For fleshy free of infestation (Horn 1988). One example of this fruits and vegetables, injuries to the epidermis, a com- strategy can be seen in the production of bean or cru- mon infection site, must be avoided (Dennis 1983). cifer crop seed in areas with low rainfall. Such areas Seed storage at moisture levels below the minimum are unfavorable for pathogens such as bacteria or cer- for growth of fungi such as Aspergillus and Penicilli- tain fungi depending on water splash for in-field dis- um species are used widely in grain storage. Thus, persal. Moreover, in certain states routine soil assays the interactions between temperature, seed moisture, are used to identify high-risk fields for potential loss- and oil composition of seeds must be understood. At es to Aphanomyces and Pythium spp.-incited root rot higher temperatures, storage fungi can grow faster Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 27 and produce their own heat and moisture by means terial is important for control of apple black rot in of metabolism once growth starts. Whereas starchy orchards and of Botrytis gray mold in greenhouses cereal seeds can be stored safely at 13 to 14% mois- (Agrios 1997). Extensive discussion of eradication ture, seeds with high oil contents need to be stored at programs for invasive species is found later in this 8 to 10% moisture for safe long-term storage. Short- chapter. term storage can be at higher moistures, and cold tem- Crop rotation is a powerful pest-management tool, peratures also can limit mold growth. Anaerobic or especially for pathogens attacking members of a sin- cold-temperature atmospheres commonly are used to gle or a few plant families, and unable to survive af- control storage insects. ter infected host tissue has decayed. Such pathogens are termed soil invaders because they cannot compete with saprophtyic organisms for foodbases and do not Eradication produce long-term survival structures such as fungal sclerotia or oospores. Rotation is of little value for Methods for decreasing or eradicating pests and controlling pathogens producing long-term survival pathogen inoculum include host eradication; remov- structures, competing with saprophytes, or having al or destruction of infected/infested plant tissue; san- broad host ranges (called soil inhabitants). Still, be- itation; crop rotation; heat treatment; antagonistic cause of the effect of antagonistic organisms on long- plants; trap crops; soil or space fumigation; disinfec- term survival of pathogen propagules, rotations may tion/disinfestation of equipment, storage facilities, aid in the control of pathogens in the soil inhabitant pots, etc.; and many forms of biological control (Agri- class. Examples include Verticillium, Sclerotinia, and os 1997: Johansen 1962). Host plant eradication may certain cyst nematode species. Many foliar pathogens provide control of initial infestations of introduced are soil invaders, and rotations will provide excellent pathogens in many nursery situations. An example control provided that infected crop residues are de- is eradication of citrus where citrus canker has been cayed before a susceptible host plant is replanted introduced into Florida (Schubert et al. 2001). Erad- (Agrios 1997). ication of host plants so that pests cannot survive The use of fallows (i.e., bare soil or flooding) last- between crops or alternate hosts also has been quite ing for several weeks has been shown to eradicate or effective, as in the use of crop-free periods, control of to decrease substantially populations of several nem- volunteer plants, and wild plant hosts near crop ar- atodes and numerous other pests. Flood fallows are eas. Eradication and destruction of elm trees through most effective in the tropics. Dutch elm disease has been an essential part of Heat commonly is used to eradicate or to decrease managing this disease. Control of Johnson grass also the numbers of various pests in soils, bulbs, corms, controls maize dwarf mosaic virus because the virus nursery stocks and seeds. Most plant pathogenic fun- overwinters in that reservoir weed. For pathogens gi, nematodes, and bacteria can be killed by a 30- requiring two hosts to complete their life cycle, erad- minute exposure to temperatures in the 50 to 80°C ication of alternate hosts decreases both inoculum and range, with moist heat being more effective than dry. genetic variability. The barberry eradication pro- In warm, sunny environments, the use of clear poly- gram, began in the 1930s in the United States, has ethylene plastic mulches will allow soil temperatures done much to control wheat stem rust and to dimin- to reach 50 to 55°C to a depth of more than 5 to 10 ish genetic variability of rust so that stem rust resis- cm. This process called soil solarization, is used wide- tance genes are effective over longer periods. Alter- ly in tropical and subtropical regions (Agrios 1997). native host eradication also is effective for control of When the mulch is kept in place for 2 to 8 weeks and white pine blister rust, cedar-apple rust, and oat soil temperatures reach 50 to 55°C daily, most soil- crown rust (Agrios 1997). borne bacteria, fungi, and nematodes in the affected Pruning to remove infected or infested host tissue zone will be killed. Also, there is evidence that popu- has been effective in the management of many insects lations of organisms antagonistic to plant pathogens and pathogens surviving in crop residues. Examples will increase. Pasteurization of soils with steam (80°C include fire blight and many fungal canker diseases for 30 minutes.) is used commonly in greenhouse and of woody plants. Removal of dropped mummified nursery situations. Soils must not be sterilized be- peach fruit is an important component of brown rot cause this procedure will kill antagonistic organisms control programs, and destruction of corn stalks is im- and create a biological vacuum such that reintroduced portant in controlling the overwintering of European pathogens will cause more damage than in nonster- corn borer. Removal of prunings and dead plant ma- ilized soil. High temperatures reached in compost- 28 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies ing can achieve results similar to those achieved in chloropicrin is practiced widely. Soil treatment with pasteurization, and there is evidence that pathogen- fumigant biocides such as methyl bromide, chloropi- suppressive microbial communities are established crin, and methyl bromide-chloropicrin mixtures are and that antimicrobial compounds can be released used widely to control soil-inhabiting fungal patho- from certain compost substrates (Katan and DeVay gens, nematodes, and certain insects and weeds. 1991). (Methyl bromide is being phased out per international Heat treatment of dormant plant parts and seeds agreement; see Figure 2.1.) Several isothiocyanate- is effective insofar as fungi, nematodes, and bacteria generating soil fumigant compounds (metam-sodium are killed at temperatures lower than those lethal to and dazomet) are used to decrease populations of both certain plant tissues. Plant parts and seeds generally are soaked in hot water at 50 to 52°C for 20 to 30 minutes although lower temperatures and longer durations are used to free bulbs and rootstocks from nematode infestation. Hot water treatment is used for crucifer seeds to eradicate Xanthomonas campestris (black rot) and Plenodomus lingam (blackleg) infection, in citrus rootstock to eradicate the burrowing nematode Radolpholus similes, and in bulbs for control of the bulb and stem nematode Ditylenchus dip- saci (Agrios 1997). Heat also is used to obtain meristems free of certain viruses that do not replicate at high temperatures. For example, potato plants grown for 4 to 6 weeks at 36°C will have meristems free of most common potato viruses. Virus-free planting stock can be multiplied from these meristems. Dry heat (72°C for 10 days) also can be used to free barley seed from Xanthomonas campestris pv. translucens (black chaff) infection without germination damage (Agrios 1997). Antagonistic plants or trap crops can be used to control several nematodes and other pests (Barker and Koenning 1998; Magdoff and van Es 2000). Mem- bers of the marigold family produce root exudates toxic to several nematode species. Green manures and organic soil amendments (oil cakes, decomposition by- products, etc.) of several different plants have been shown to decrease populations of plant pathogenic nematodes and fungi in soils. Oat green manures have been shown to decrease the severity of Aphano- myces black root rot of sugarbeets. Trap crops can be Figure 2.1. Ranchers in California set aside portions of their highly effective for control of cyst and root-knot nem- farms for collaborative studies on methyl bromide alternatives for strawberries. Photo by Scott Bauer, atodes. For example, oil seed radish cultivars resis- Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of tant to Heterodera schachtii can be used to control this Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. nematode. Crotalaria is a trap crop for root-knot nematode, and black night shade can be used as a trap nematodes and soil-inhabiting fungi. Both fumigant crop for the potato golden nematode. The trap crop (1,3 dichloropropene) and nonfumigant nematicides stimulates egg hatch when the nematode invades the (carbamate and organophosphate) are used to de- trap-crop root, but the pest cannot complete its life- crease nematode populations (up to 99%) before plant- cycle because feeding sites cannot be established. ing. In the instance of nematodes and annual crops, Disinfestation of tools, pots, storage containers, population decreases below the economic threshold for equipment, and soil with steam, chemicals such as 4 to 8 weeks after planting will provide economic con- bleach, quaternary ammonia compounds, iodine, trol even though populations are larger at the end of formaldehyde, propylene oxide, methyl bromide, and the cropping season. But soil fumigation is quite ex- Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 29 pensive, and its use generally is limited to high-val- develop to attack previously resistant plants and why ue crops. Fumigation with methyl bromide and phos- vertical resistance is considered unstable in environ- phene gas also is used for space or cargo treatment ments where pathogens have sexual stages and where for control of insects. These practices are widespread infection cycles occur in a given year. To combat the in grain storage and fruit export-import shipment. development of new pathogen races, breeders can (1) Many biological control agents decrease pathogen use several resistance genes in a single cultivar (pyr- populations by producing antibiotic compounds or by amiding resistance genes), (2) use mixtures of culti- direct parasitism of the pathogen (Boland and Kuyk- vars, each with different resistance genes (multilines) endall 1998). Trichoderma spp. and Gliocladium spp., that would require a pathogen race to have multiple used commercially for biological control of Rhizocto- virulence genes, or (3) use horizontal resistance. nia and Pythium spp., do so by means of mycopara- Classification of host plant resistance also may be sitism. The fungus Ampelomyces quiqualis is used based on the mechanisms affecting the pest. This commercially for control of certain powdery mildew method, however, ignores the fact that the underly- fungi. Sporidesmium sclerotivorum and Coniothryi- ing genetic causes of resistance are myriad (Russell um minitans are effective parasites/antagonists of 1978). Deployment of host plant resistance obtained Sclerotinia spp. The use of fungal viruses has shown through standard breeding practices tends to enhance promise in controlling canker diseases of woody rather than to deplete the genetic diversity of agro- plants. Many other biological control microorganisms ecosystems. protect the plant by tying up available iron through Resistance exists to a broad spectrum of harmful siderophore sequestration or by inducing resistant organisms, including insects, bacteria, fungi, virus- reactions in plants. Biological control organisms types, mites, nematodes, birds, and even mammalian ically function through several mechanisms of action. herbivores or other plants (allelopathy) (Boller and Meins 1992; Russell 1978; Stalker and Murphy 1991). Plants also can possess resistance to a wide range of Suppression of Pest Increase abiotic maladies or stresses, including salt, drought, ozone, and aluminum (Ayers 1948; Musgrave and through Host Resistance Ding 1998). Resistance in noncultivated plants often develops during the evolutionary selection process, Host Resistance when plant populations are exposed to pests. Crop resistance is considered a fundamental com- One of the most efficient methods of pest control, ponent of IPM because the technology is in the seed. host resistance, has been the focus of breeding pro- Management intensity (suitable for conventional or grams for all types of plants. Plants are resistant to other management systems) is one feature differen- pests because they have specific resistance genes, they tiating host plant resistance from other IPM tools, are not hosts of the pest, or they have other charac- many of which are management intensive (Kennedy teristics allowing them to escape pest damage. Ge- and Sutton 2000). For example, pest populations, fre- netic resistance can be complete (i.e., immunity) or in- quently monitored in IPM, are not usually measured complete (i.e., on the continuum from immunity to when host-plant resistance is deployed. Like other susceptibility). It can be governed by single genes pro- tools, however, host plant resistance must be deployed viding resistance to specific races or biotypes of a pest in a manner ensuring longevity of use or durability. (vertical resistance) or by multiple genes providing This situation may require monitoring the crop for resistance to all pest races (horizontal resistance). new pathogen or pest biotypes, rotating resistance Vertical resistance is controlled by a single gene and genes, or developing multiline varieties composed of is a more easily achieved breeding objective. Verti- lines with differing resistance genes. cal resistance, however, may be less durable than Wherever genetic uniformity exists within a crop, horizontal resistance because it is controlled by sin- devastating epidemics likely will occur (NAS 1972). gle genes. Crucial to an understanding of the dura- When growers plant a single genotype over large ar- bility of vertical resistance is the gene-for-gene con- eas, breeders have used a single source of resistance, cept (Boller and Meins 1992), which suggests that for or the host evolved separately from the pest, such a each resistance gene in the host plant there exists a negative result is quite possible. Examples of disas- corresponding virulence gene in the pathogen. A ters relating to widespread use of a single type of re- small change in the virulence gene can defeat the resistance in the United States include the southern sistance gene. This fact explains how new races can corn leaf blight epidemic, brown plant hopper resis- 30 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies tance in rice, greenbug resistance in sorghum, and the pathogen has provided selection pressure for de- Hessian fly resistance in winter wheat. Devastation velopment of resistant individuals. Examples of cen- of the American chestnut by the chestnut blight ters of origin are the Andes Mountains of South Amer- pathogen that evolved in Asia is an example of sepa- ica for potato, Eurasia and the Middle East for wheat rate evolution. The question of genetic vulnerability and barley, and Central America and Mexico for of crop plants due to narrow germplasm bases has maize. Other sources of resistance genes are land race been addressed several times in the past 30 years cultivars or close plant relatives used by indigenous (Duvick 1984; Fermin-Muñoz et al. 2000; NAS 1972). peoples for centuries. The importance of preserving Breeding for disease resistance is perhaps the dom- genetic diversity and germplasm collections has been inant disease management tool for crops with low unit identified as a national priority (NAS 1972). Through values such as small grains, corn, soybean, and rice molecular technology, identified resistance genes can for which growers cannot afford to use multiple fun- be transferred with specificity between plants and gicide sprays or other tactics such as long-term rota- unrelated plants or other life forms, a process that tion. Breeders have developed cultivars with resis- would be impossible with traditional breeding tech- tance to multiple pathogens. For example, wheat with niques (Kennedy and Sutton 2000; Stalker and Mur- resistance to one or more viruses and to one or more phy 1991). Genes transferred from unrelated species rust and smut pathogens, as well as resistance to include Bacillus thuringensis (Bt), a bacterium, trans- Septoria or Helminthosporium leaf spot, is available. ferred to field corn, cotton, or vegetables for insect Corn varieties with resistance to multiple diseases are control; and plant-virus coat protein, transferred into the rule. Vine crops with resistance to bacterial wilt, tomato, various curcubits, papaya, and certain orna- Fusarium wilt, cucumber mosaic, anthracnose, downy mentals for control of plant viruses (see Chapters 3 mildew, and powdery mildew are available. Breed- and 14). Herbicide-tolerant (HT) transgenic crops ing for disease resistance is done by private compa- such as cotton and soybean now are accepted widely nies, universities, government agencies, and interna- in the United States (See Chapters 3 and 14). tional research centers such as the International With regard to the development of resistant vari- Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) eties, two main steps are taken. First, a source of (wheat and maize), the International Rice Research resistance, the donor, must be identified. Second, the Institute (IRRI), the International Center for Tropi- trait must be transferred from the donor to a well- cal Agriculture (CIAT) (beans), the International Cen- adapted, desirable crop variety (Russell 1978; Stalk- ter for Agricultural Research in Dryland Areas (ICAR- er and Murphy 1991). Several years and multiple DA) (barley, wheat, and pulse crops), and the generations usually are required to complete the International Potato Center (CIP). transfer. A feature common to both activities is a technique for identifying plants carrying resistance genes. This technique often requires challenging plants with How Is Plant Resistance Obtained? pests and determining response (e.g., pest departure, Pest-resistant varieties usually are developed by or death, or plant damage). As knowledge is gained means of crossing parents having desirable horticul- about the nature of resistance, other techniques tural or agronomic characteristics with parents hav- may be used to aid in identification of resistant ing genetic characteristics for pest resistance, and plants (Boller and Meins 1992). For example, the then by selecting offspring with resistance and other phytochemical(s) responsible for resistance may be desirable characteristics. This process may take sev- measured or the presence of either the genes respon- eral years and multiple generations to select for highly sible for resistance or the genes closely linked to those performing hybrids (Stalker and Murphy 1991). Do- responsible may be verified. Regardless of the tech- nors of resistance traits may be of the same species nique used to identify resistant plants, procedures as the recipient or may be of a related species whose usually involve a considerable commitment of time target genes are transferred by traditional plant and resources by the breeder and his or her collabo- breeding technologies. Target genes from unrelated rators in the pest disciplines. species must be transferred by molecular or other The degree of difficulty involved in identifying re- modern technologies (Russell 1978; Kennedy and sistance traits varies. If quite strong in the donor spe- Sutton 2000). Pest resistance may be identified in cies, resistance usually is evident. If weak, it may be plants that have co-evolved with the pest(s) for long difficult to identify. Resistance traits also may be periods. Thus, resistance genes often are found at the masked by other traits. For example, host resistance center of origin of the host plant, where evolution with conferred by repellence may mask resistance con- Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 31 ferred by toxicity. The resistance trait often occurs Ruesink (1980) estimated that the use of a resistant at a low frequency in the general population, and thus variety of alfalfa would result in 40% larval mortali- evaluation of many individual plants is required to ty of alfalfa weevil and that, combined with the use determine the presence of resistance. of a weevil parasite, such a variety would save pro- Genetic transfer of resistance can be straightfor- ducers $73,000,000 in the eastern United States. In ward or complex. Traits present in distantly related 1982, Bradley and Duffy stated that a single nema- species usually are relatively difficult to transfer, as tode-resistant variety of soybean increased U.S. farm- are traits complex in themselves (i.e., controlled by ers’ profits by more than $66,000,000/year (yr). Bun- several or many genes). For complex traits and for tin and Raymer (1989), concentrating on the forage traits present in distant relatives, the intermediate value of winter wheat grown in Georgia, estimated the step of gene pool enrichment often is necessary. value of host plant resistance to Hessian fly at be- Breeding and introduction of crop varieties with tween $25 and $60/acre (a.). The development and high levels of disease resistance have been notably deployment of hybrid corn in the United States with successful, especially for certain high-value crops such increased resistance to diseases and pests resulted in as tomato, as illustrated in Table 2.1. These variet- augmented yields from less than 30 bushels (bu)/a. in ies often are introduced into existing production sys- 1900 to more than 120 bu/a. in 1999 (USDA–NASS tems with little modification of traditional or IPM 1999). Additional benefits such as those to the ecolo- operations. This success can be attributed in part to gy or to public health were largely ignored in these identification, in the same crop species, of high resis- estimates. But the estimated percentages of crop loss- tance levels controlled by single genes. Transfer of es caused by insects, pathogens, and weeds continue single genes from a donor of the same species usually to increase (currently 42%) worldwide and amount to is a straightforward task for plant breeders. But $500 billion in damage (Fermin-Muñoz et al. 2000). transfers of multigenic traits and traits from other Two of the most striking examples of success in species are more difficult and time-consuming. Vari- disease resistance have occurred in the elimination eties of major crops resistant to disease are common. of plant disease epidemics, namely of wheat stem rust Success in breeding for host plant resistance has been and southern corn leaf blight. Since the 1950s, wheat attributed to the presence in primary gene pools of a stem rust has been controlled by means of resistant high frequency of strong resistance traits controlled varieties; without such varieties, farmers’ losses prob- by one or a few genes. Crop varieties resistant to nem- ably would have exceeded $1 billion/yr (Agriculture atodes and insects also have been developed, but these and Agri-Food Canada 1998). The southern corn leaf successes are fewer in number than those for disease blight epidemic devastated U.S. farmers in 1970, resistance involving fungi, bacteria, and viruses. This causing a $1 billion loss to corn growers. Use of re- difference is due, in part, to (1) the greater complexi- sistant varieties since has eliminated the threat of ty of the attacking organisms, especially of insects another epidemic (Ullstrup 1972). compared with bacterial and fungal pathogens, and (2) the resulting complexity of interactions between Host Plant Resistance: What Has Limited Its insects and plants. Because of this complexity, traits contributing to host plant resistance in insects are Development and Use? increasingly likely to be multigenic and thus increas- The main limitation to deployment of resistant ingly difficult to transfer. Compared with disease varieties is the lack of varieties possessing useful ag- resistance, which often has been uncovered in conspe- ronomic or horticultural characteristics combined cific or closely related species, insect and nematode with effective resistance characteristics. There are resistance often is present only in more distantly re- many reasons for this deficit; they can be classified, lated relatives, making transfer difficult. however, as one of three main types. Funds necessary for successful breeding of host-resistant varieties are unavailable, host resistance is difficult or im- Host Plant Resistance, Value, and Successes possible to develop, or breeders have focused on yield Comprehensive estimates of the value of host plant and quality and overlooked pest resistance. The pres- resistance do not exist, but a number of striking ex- ence of acceptable solutions alternative to host resis- amples are available. In 1976, Schalk and Rattcliffe tance, such as effective and economical pesticides, estimated that 319,000 tons of pesticides were saved tends to diminish the urgency of solving pest problems annually as a result of the use of insect-resistant va- through host resistance. Strategic difficulties in rieties of corn, barley, grain sorghum, and alfalfa. breeding for host plant resistance occur because (1) 32 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 2.1. Economically important disease, insect, and mite pests of tomato to which tomato breeders have successfully bred host-plant resistance (Compiled by J. Snyder, University of Kentucky)

Pest Common name Scientific name

Fungal diseases Collar rot Alternaria solani Early blight Alternaria solani Leaf mold Cladosporium fulvum Anthracnose Colletotrichum coccodes Target leaf spot Corynespora cassiicola Didymella canker Didymella lycopersici Fusarium wilt Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici Late blight Phytophthora infestans Phytopthora fruit rot Phytophthora parasitica Phytopthora root rot Phytophthora parasitica Corky root Pyrenochaeta lycopersici Septoria leaf spot Septoria lycopersici Gray leaf spot Stemphylium solani Verticillium wilt Verticillium albo-atrum; Verticillium dahliae

Bacterial diseases Bacterial canker Clavibacter michiganensis Bacterial speck Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato Bacterial wilt Ralstonia solanacearum Bacterial spot Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria

Nematode parasites Potato cyst nematode Globodera spp. Sugarbeet nematode Heterodera schactii Root-knot nematodes Meloidogyne arenaria, M. hapla, M. incognita, M. javinica

Viral diseases Cucumber mosaic virus Cucumber mosaic virus Curly top Beet curly top virus Potato virus Y Potato virus Y Spotted wilt Tomato spotted wilt virus Tobacco mosaic Tobacco mosaic virus Tomato yellow leaf curl Tomato yellow leaf curl virus Tomato leaf curl Tomato leaf curl virus

Insect pests Cotton bollworm/Tomato fruitworm Heliothis armigera Tomato pinworm Keiferia lycopersicella Egyptian cotton leaf worm Spodoptera littoralis Tomato fruit worm Heliothis zea Vegetable leafminer Liriomyza sativae American serpentine leafminer Liriomyza trifolii Potato aphid Macrosiphum euphorbiae South American tomato pinworm Scrobipapula absoluta Southern armyworm Spodoptera eridania Greenhouse whitefly Trialeurodes vaporarium Beet armyworm Spodopter exigua Tobacco fleabeetle Epitrix hirtipennis Potato moth Phthorimaea opercullela Tomato looper Plusia calcites Cotton aphid Aphis gossypii Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata Tomato hornworm Manduca sexta Green peach aphid Myzus persicae Silverleaf whitefly Bemisia argentifollii

Mite pests Carmine spider mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus Two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae Mariana mite Tetranychus marianae Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 33 the resistance characteristics are unavailable, (2) the igua] on vegetables, and others) may be greater when resistance characteristic is complex and difficult to insect pests feed or are present on insect-resistant transfer, or (3) the science and/or technology needed than on noninsect-resistant plant varieties (Hamm to effect transfer is lacking (Frey 1996, 1997, 1998). and Wiseman 1986; Schuster, Calvin, and Langston 1983). For example, the nuclear polyhedrosis virus- related mortality of Helicoverpa zea larvae was dra- Indirect Effects of Plant Characteristics on Pests, matically potentiated by feeding them insect-resistant Especially Insect Pests corn silk, compared with feeding non-resistant silks. Host plant resistance often is considered a direct Nutrients available to a crop also can have profound effect of plant characteristics on attacking organisms. effects on a pest population (Gutierrez et al. 1988a,b; But plant characteristics can have indirect effects, as Tamo 1991). well. These interactions may be unrelated or related Morphology and anatomy of host plants can influ- directly to host resistance. For example, leaf charac- ence interactions between insects and natural ene- teristics alterable by plant breeders can improve leaf mies. Insects on plants with an open architecture may ability to retain pesticides (Antonious and Snyder be discovered more easily by natural enemies (Pimen- 1993). In certain instances, presence of host plant tel 1961). Additionally, plant features may be present resistance has been shown to increase pest suscepti- that prolong the time that insects are exposed to nat- bility to pesticides (Muid 1993; Nicol et al. 1993). Host ural enemies or decrease the ability of natural ene- plant resistance also may decrease the rate at which mies to find and to exploit prey (Natarajan 1990). pests develop resistance to pesticides (Gould 1998). Other characteristics may synergize, act additively Current Trends in Breeding for Host Resistance upon, or hamper the use of pest-control tactics. Plants produce chemicals that can be sensed or Recent reports of trends in plant breeding research used by other organisms, including pests. For exam- indicate a decline in public plant breeding programs ple, plants produce chemical signals that attract and an increase in private plant breeding programs searching enemies (Turlings, Tumlinson, and Lewis (Brooks and Vest 1985; Collins and Phillips 1991; Frey 1990). Such characteristics always may be present 1996, 1998). According to Frey (1996), most plant in the crop, may be induced by attack of a pest, or may breeding research in the public sector is directed to- be a characteristic of an associated plant in a multi- ward basic plant breeding research or genetic evalu- ple-species cropping system. For example, aphids, a ation and enhancement, also called gene pool enrich- pest of cabbage, are parasitized to a greater degree ment. Gene pool enrichment is the public research when the cabbage crop is interplanted with beets, area underpinning improvement of host plant resis- which attract aphid parasites (Read, Feeny, and Root tance. Evidence suggests that the research efforts 1970). Plant chemicals can be used as kairomones, needed to improve gene pool enrichment are not in- or plant-produced compounds that become incorporat- creasing but decreasing. ed into the body odor of herbivores. These odors are Searches of the Current Research Information Sys- sensed by searching enemies, who use them to locate tem (CRIS) database (USDA 1999) can provide a prey (Lewis, Jones, and Sparks 1972). Plant chemi- snapshot of related scientific efforts in plant breed- cals also can mask other chemicals that attract ene- ing for resistance. A recent search of the database mies (Moneith 1960). Insect pests can sequester revealed approximately 2,700 citations that include chemicals from their host plants, and the presence of plant breeding as an activity. Approximately 40% of these chemicals in insects may alter their interactions these citations included disease resistance as an ob- with natural enemies (Campbell and Duffey 1979; jective; 17%, insect resistance; 7%, nematode resis- Thorpe and Barbosa 1986). tance; and 1%, weed control, or allelopathy. Only 3% Resistance or nutritional status of host plants can of the 2,700 citations included IPM as an activity. alter interactions between pests and enemies. Pests Frey (1998) presented data on success in plant breed- with slower growth rates are exposed to natural ene- ing that support a similar division of effort among mies for a longer period and consequently may suffer attempts to breed for resistance. These limited sur- greater mortality (Price 1986; Price et al. 1980). The veys suggest that plant-breeding efforts directed to efficacy of Bacillus thuringensis (controls several in- host resistance probably are most frequently under- sects) and polyhedrosis viruses (targeted for corn ear- taken to study disease resistance, followed by insect, worm [Helicoverpa zea], tobacco budworm [Heliothis nematode, and weed resistance. Efforts dedicated to virescens] on cotton, beet armyworm [Spodoptera ex- breeding specifically for IPM systems seem minimal. 34 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

to remain a tool for IPM. Plans have been offered for Future Challenges and Directions reinvigorating traditional plant breeding research in As has been mentioned, host plant resistance is a the United States (Frey 1997, 1998). These plans call fundamental tool or component of an IPM system. for added national support of gene pool enrichment Characteristics required of a successful variety car- and include goals of producing crops sustaining or rying host plant resistance are constrained doubly, improving environmental quality, improving econom- requiring pest resistance and high, acceptable yields. ic viability, and decreasing agrochemical use. To the Because this constraint will remain in the future, extent possible, all stakeholders, and not only plant successful breeding for host resistance is unlikely to breeders, should support such improvements. occur independently of breeding for other traits. To enhance the availability of resistant varieties, Successful varieties with host plant resistance will the IPM scientific community must continue to sup- arise from active breeding programs, including those port both traditional and molecular research pro- with host plant resistance and improved yield and grams targeted to improve host plant resistance. The quality as breeding objectives. Increasing the fre- community also must recognize the opportunities and quency of resistant varieties will require improvement the unique challenges that IPM systems present in along the following lines: (1) increasing the number regard to host plant resistance. Finally, these diverse of public research programs directed at improving scientific communities must explore new ways of gen- quality, yield, and resistance; (2) improving the effi- erating meaningful interchange. ciency or success rates of these programs; and (3) increasing the priority of breeding for host resistance to pests. Cultural Practices for Minimizing Production of varieties adapted specifically to IPM systems provides additional opportunities and chal- Crop Pests lenges for plant breeders and for IPM specialists. Many cultural practices have proved successful in Improved understanding of the role played by the host the management of a wide range of crop pests. Agri- in tritrophic interactions likely will underpin produc- cultural systems developed before the era of pesticides tion of varieties specifically for IPM systems. Genet- used a variety of cultural practices, which often were ically controlled plant characteristics can differ great- based on empirical research (Thurston 1990). Fun- ly. For example, certain varieties of flax produce oil; damental mechanisms frequently have not been un- others produce fiber. Different varieties of mint have derstood, but efforts in IPM and sustainable very different tastes and uses. Field corn, popcorn, agricultural research have provided a basis for under- and sweet corn are the same species but exist in these standing the biology behind many cultural practices. various forms because of selection, the primary tool There is societal pressure to minimize or to elimi- of the plant breeder. Unquestionably, genetic varia- nate pesticides. In certain locations, there also is tion exists for characteristics that could enhance other political pressure to promote organically grown agri- IPM tools. But exploiting such variation will require cultural food products. For example, in Berkeley, longer-term collaboration between plant breeders and California, Mayor Shirley Dean announced on June IPM specialists. 9, 1999 that she would like the entire city to drink only Frey (1998) has stated that gene pool enrichment organically grown coffee. One goal of sustainable is conducted primarily by public-sector scientists, and agriculture is to develop biologically based manage- this activity is largely uncoordinated, underfunded, ment systems requiring limited levels of material in- and absent for many crops. In short, the traditional puts (See Chapter 4). genetic research leading to the development of host Developing cultural control methods within a crop plant resistance is inadequate. Frey (1998) also has management system requires extensive information. stated that a dramatic increase in germplasm evalu- Long-term planning is essential and must take into ation and gene pool enrichment will be required if account the characteristics of the agroecosystem, in- plant breeding is to meet the goal of decreased agro- cluding vegetative diversity, crop, and climatic stabil- chemical use without compromising production while ity (Hall and Kuepper 1997; Southwood and Way meeting public demand. This goal is consistent with 1970). The cropping system must include features the goals of IPM. that can be manipulated to enhance biological control Trends in public breeding programs, including co- or that can discourage establishment of pests and dis- ordination with genetic engineering programs, must eases. The underlying principle of cultural controls, be maintained or enhanced if host plant resistance is therefore, is to modify management practices so that Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 35 the environment becomes less vulnerable to pest intercropping), and refugia. vasion, reproduction, survival, and dispersal, and so that a decrease in pest numbers can be achieved either to avoid economic injury or to allow biological Crop Rotation control to take effect (Altieri 1994; Barker and Koen- Crop rotation, one of the oldest pest-management ning 1998; Takahashi 1964). tactics, ideally involves changing plant species and/ An array of management strategies and tactics can or cultivars and planting dates so that host crops of be considered cultural controls. Some of the most prevalent pests are grown only when target pests are common, including some of the oldest practices, in- near or below damaging levels (Altieri 1994; Bridge volve cultivation, manuring, crop rotation and selec- 1996; Sullivan 1998). Rotation of a host and a non- tion, planting date, sanitation, intercropping, resid- host crop is very effective against pests with a nar- ual root destruction, antagonistic cover crops, and row host range and low dispersal ability. Crop rota- trap crops (Barker and Koenning 1998; Bridge 1996; tion is especially well suited for pests and pathogens Sullivan 1998). Most of these cultural control mea- that cannot survive for more than one or two seasons sures are primarily preventive and need to be applied in the absence of a host crop (Table 2.2). Selection of well in advance of the pest attack or disease develop- the “nonhost” crop must take into account potential ment. With soilborne pests, long-term strategies are effects on other pathogens and pests (Altieri 1994). required to minimize the effects of causal organisms. Rotation of crops enables rotation of pesticides and From the 1950s through the 1980s, with focus of- may slow the increase of pesticide-degrading micro- ten on the use of highly effective pesticides and high- organisms, thus allowing chemical effectiveness to be input agriculture, cultural practices tended to receive prolonged. A herbicide program to control weeds in limited attention. The concepts of IPM and sustain- one crop that may not be controlled in another because able production systems, however, have generated of crop sensitivity to the pesticide is made possible renewed interest in cultural control methods with crop rotation. For example, in Australia, a great (Kennedy and Sutton 2000; Liebman, Mohler, and brome weed was controlled easily by simazine in the Staver 2001; NRC 1996). Key factors in cultural con- lupin phase of a lupin-wheat rotation (Heenan, Tay- trol include diversification or polyculture, and envi- lor, and Leys 1990). This weed was difficult to con- ronmental and biological manipulation leading to bi- trol in wheat. Rotating wheat with sorghum was very ological diversity (Altieri 1994). effective for controlling wild oats (Martin and Felton Knowledge of crop and pest biology, ecology, and 1993). This rotation required two winters to control phenology is essential for the design and implemen- the wild oats with cultivation or herbicides, and an tation of cultural control measures, with attention exponential decline in seed numbers resulted. given to recognizing the “weak links” in the pest life Crop species differ considerably in terms of their cycle (Barker and Koenning 1998; Bridge 1996; Coak- overall competitive ability (Boerboom 1999). This fact er 1987). Such knowledge should allow for the devel- may affect initial requirements for herbicide use. A opment of a system making the crop less prone to crop’s ability to shade out weeds can affect the fre- damage by pests and diseases and simultaneously quency and/or the rate of herbicide application. Man- should diminish pest survival and enhance biological agement practices such as planting in narrow rows control. or at higher crop population densities can enhance Specific cultural controls addressed herein are crop crop competition and decrease the herbicide rate re- rotation, tillage and no-till, trap crops, green manure quired or the need for sequential herbicide applica- and cover crops, multiple cropping or polyculture (in- tions (Boerboom 1999). For example, seed production

Table 2.2. Crop response in pest- or pathogen-infested fields following selected cropping systems

Target crop Crop response Reference Monoculture (or high annual frequency) HostÐNonhost

Soybean 1,345 kg/ha 2,776 kg/ha Weaver et al. 1998 Soybean 2,437a kg/ha 3,110b kg/ha Young 1998 Turnip 70% marketable 98% marketable Sumner et al. 1978 aThese means were derived by averaging all continuous soybean yields. bThese means were derived by averaging all soybean yields for the year following corn. 36 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies and survival of eastern black nightshade was much 8000 lower in drilled soybean than in soybean planted in fenamiphos 76-cm rows (Quakenbush and Andersen 1984). Corn untreated 6000 /150cc soil root worms (Diabrotica spp.) commonly are controlled in corn areas by rotating corn crops with soybeans (Pedigo 1989, 1999). Adult beetles lay their eggs in 4000 mature cornfields in which their eggs overwinter. The next spring, root worm eggs hatch, but the highly 2000 specific root worm larvae, which feed only on corn roots, cannot disperse from their habitat to find other sources of corn, and die within the soybean crop. Numbers of nematodes 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Widespread use of a corn /soybean rotation, however, A has led to the corn root worm’s acquiring a behavior- Years al resistance with both an extended diapause in one 2.0 population to survive the rotation and the ability to 1.8 Fenamiphos survive and lay eggs in soybeans in another popula- history tion (Levine and Oloumi-Sadeghi 1991; Onstad et al. 1.6 No fenamiphos 1999). 1.4 Rotating pesticides may be as important as rotat- 1.2 ing crops, especially for certain insecticides and fun- 1.0 gicides. This practice also is important for certain 0.8 nematicides; for example, the nematicide fenamiphos Concentration (ppm) Concentration is degraded rapidly by soil microflora after several 0.6 years of continual use (Figure 2.2) (Davis, Johnson, 0.4 and Wauchope 1993; Johnson 1998). Research in The 0.2 Netherlands and in Australia indicates that metam- 0 sodium also is subject to biodegradation (See 062 4810 12 14 Days Chapter 14). B Altering planting dates along with crop rotation is Figure 2.2. Evidence for microbial breakdown of fenamiphos a cultural practice that may help alleviate pest prob- resulting from continuous usage. A. Population densities of Meloidogyne incognita second-stage lems in certain environments. The soybean cyst nem- juveniles in a sweetcorn-sweet potato-vetch crop- atode has a winter dormancy that begins to break with ping system (Johnson et al. 1992). B. Concentra- the onset of warming soils, and its population densi- tion of fenamiphos sulfoxide as affected by ties begin to decline rapidly when dormancy ends fenamiphos history (Davis et al. 1993). (Koenning and Anand 1991; Koenning, Schmitt, and Barker 1993). Thus, a delay in planting often exposes were present in wheat seeded in 3-inch rows in Octo- the crop to fewer pests. For pests such as the soybean ber at 120 pounds /a. than at 60 pounds /a. Cheat also cyst nematode, which has an exponential growth was affected by seeding date. In plots seeded in Sep- phase late in the season, an early maturing crop may tember, October, and November, cheat density aver- limit late-season increases (Figure 2.3). Limited nem- aged 84, 71, and 11 plants/m2, respectively. This ef- atode reproduction is beneficial, for their population fect of planting date, however, may have been densities are inversely related to crop yield (Figure confounded with tillage. 2.4). Altering planting date along with crop rotation should be effective with any pest-host combination whose biology is similar to that of the soybean cyst Tillage and No-Till nematode. Control of cheat (Bromus secalinus L.) in Tillage affects the physical characteristics of soil winter wheat is achieved best by cultural methods and crop residues. These effects can influence sur- (Baker and Peeper 1990). Seeding rate, seeding date, vival and movement of pests harbored by soil and row spacing of wheat influence plant density of and /or residue. The positive aspects of no-till on soil cheat (Koscelny et al. 1991). For example, plots with quality are documented (Valenzuela 2000) and will wheat seeded in 3- and 9-inch rows in September at not be discussed in depth here. Instead, the focus will

120 pounds /a. had fewer cheat plants present in April be on the beneficial effects arising from pest control. than plots seeded at 60 pounds/a. Fewer cheat plants Effective management of several pests is readily Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 37

80 4 Group V - planted mid-May Group V - planted mid-May Group VII - planted mid-May Group VII - planted mid-May Group V - planted late June Group V - planted late June 3 Group VII - planted late June 60 Group VII - planted late June eggs

2 40

Thousands 1

20 yield (thousand kg/ha) Soybean

Heterodera glycines Heterodera 0 0 1 2 Years of rotation 0 S-SN-S N-N-S N N-N Cropping sequence Figure 2.4. Mean soybean seed yield (kg/ha) of soybean cultivars susceptible to Heterodera glycines (soybean Figure 2.3. Mean population density of eggs of Heterodera gly- cyst nematode) planted in mid-May or late June and cines (soybean cyst nematode) at soybean harvest grown in rotation with nonhosts for 0, 1, or 2 yr on susceptible cultivars grown in rotation with (Koenning et al. 1993). nonhosts for 0, 1, or 2 yr (Koenning et al. 1993). achieved by complete destruction of the residual ly. In a regional assessment of selected pathogens in stalks followed immediately by incorporation of the the Midwestern United States, the incidence of brown shredded material into the soil by plowing. Numbers stem rot was greater in fields in which tillage was of pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) on cotton, minimized than in fields in which tillage was suffi- tobacco hornworm (Manduca sexta) on tobacco, and cient to decrease residue to less than 15% (Workneh root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) on both crops et al. 1999). In the same study, population densities are dramatically decreased by this procedure (Allen of the soybean cyst nematode were greater in tilled 1994; Barker, K. R. 2003. Personal communication; than in no-till fields. In other studies such as one in Godfrey et al. 2001). This stalk destruction program Iowa, tillage had little impact on this nematode is legislated for cotton in several U.S. states, with (Gavassoni, Tylka, and Munkvold 2001; Table 2.3). owners and tenants jointly and/or severally being re- With recent developments in precision agriculture, sponsible for compliance (Pink bollworm regulation site-specific applications of herbicides hold much 5.179[c]). promise for greatly decreasing the amounts of herbi- Overall, total population densities of weeds, in- cides and pesticides used in IPM programs (See Chap- sects, and pathogens often are related directly to till- ters 3 and 14). The selection of a weed-control pro- age amount. That is, as tillage increases, the popu- gram also may affect insects and pathogens. For lation density of associated pest organisms decreases. example, poor weed control in soybean often results A study of weeds in southwestern Ontario, Canada, in increased insect and soybean cyst nematode prob- demonstrated that the total population density of lems (Alston et al. 1991). weeds/field was greatest in no-tillage fields and least Herbicides have enabled growers to decrease the in conventionally tilled fields (Table 2.3) (Frick and amount of tillage for the majority of acreage of row Thomas 1992). Certain grasses such as rye and wheat crops being treated. Nevertheless, mechanical weed decreased populations of certain broadleaf weeds control still is a viable option and was used on 73% of (Worsham 1989). the corn crop in Iowa and 68% of that crop in Wiscon- It is common for tillage to affect certain pathogens sin (Hanna et al. 1996; Owen, M. D. 2002. Personal adversely, but seemingly to affect others beneficial- communication). Cultivation to control weeds

Table 2.3. Effects of tillage on pest population densities

Pest/Pathogen density Tillage Reference Conventional Reduced No-till

Total weed (no./m2) 17.0 24.7 31.7 Frick and Thomas 1992 Early-season weeds (% suppression) 9Ð30 76Ð81 Worsham 1989 Soybean cyst nematode eggs 5,445 3,823 5,838 Gavassoni, Tylka, and Munkvold 2001 38 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

(ca $6.00 /a.) is considerably more economical than ings earlier than the main planting diverts insect at- chemical weed control (ca $30.00 /a. per application). tacks away from the crop at risk by providing insects Cultivation allows growers to use band application of with a more attractive food source (Coaker 1987). herbicides, which lowers the chemical cost by 50%. This system works where the pest has a narrow host Further, mechanical weed control may be beneficial range. through decreased selection pressure related to her- The effectiveness of trap crops will be affected by bicides. Today, with new designs in rotary hoes and the population dynamics of the target pest (Valenzu- cultivators, mechanical weed control used in conven- ela 2000). Highly mobile arthropod pests, for exam- tionally tilled fields can be used in reduced till and ple, may not be managed easily with trap crops; pests no-till systems (Boerboom 1999). A major advance in with limited mobility can be managed more easily. mechanical weed control is the development of the row This fact was demonstrated in Hawaii, where a dia- guidance (vision guided) systems (Åstrand 2000; mondback moth population failed to become estab- Baerveldt and Åstrand 1997). This equipment allows lished in cabbage fields with a canola/cabbage border the cultivator to follow a row of plants accurately. (Luther, Valenzuela, and DeFrank 1996). Economics, as well as planting and harvesting equipment, may discourage growers from using trap crops. Trap Crops Trap crops can be used to decrease pest populations in various ways. A susceptible variety can be plant- Green Manure and Cover Crops ed and destroyed before the nematode has the oppor- Green manure crops have a wide range of benefi- tunity to complete its life cycle (Barker and Koenning cial effects on crop production. They improve soil- 1998; Bridge 1996). A more practical alternative is moisture holding capacity and increase the availabil- to use a crop that attracts the nematode and allows ity of other plant nutrients such as phosphorus (Lewis penetration but does not support completion of the life and Hunter 1940; Pieters and McKee 1929; Rodgers cycle. Crops more attractive to insect pests than the and Giddens 1957; Sullivan 1998). Winter annual main crop, or specific stages of crop growth, may func- legumes are excellent green manure crops, providing tion as trap crops. Thus, one IPM strategy involves an important nutrition source and being associated planting a row or several rows of insect-attractive with high yields (Lewis and Hunter 1940; Pieters and alfalfa between several rows of cotton (El-Zik and McKee 1929, 1938; Rodgers and Giddens 1957). Un- Frisbie 1991). The effectiveness of such a program can doubtedly, the effects on water holding capacity and be demonstrated with a leaf hopper-vectored viral on nutrients are the major benefits provided by a disease of rice called tungro (Table 2.4) (Saxena, Jus- green manure crop. Cover crops and green manure to, and Palanginan 1988), whose negative effect was incorporation into soil also have been used to break decreased by a trap crop program. This situation most disease cycles. In Idaho, sudangrass and corn green- likely was related to a lower population density of the manure treatment resulted in control of verticillium insect vector. More nymphs and adults were record- wilt and in the highest yield of potatoes in the trial. ed in the untreated control, and yield was significantly Disease was most destructive in the fallow treatment. higher in trapped and in insecticide-treated rice fields Responses in other green manures such as rape, Aus- than in the control. Growing smaller trap crop plant- trian winter pea, oat, and rye were intermediate be-

Table 2.4. Incidence of rice tungro virus (RTV) disease on rice as influenced by various numbers of rows of a trap crop in the Philippines (Saxena et al. 1988)

Trap cropa Main cropa Incidence of RTV Number of border rows Insecticide sprayed weekly Insecticide sprayed weekly (%)

0Ð Ð36.8 0+ + 6.4 2+ Ð 5.2 3+ Ð 7.5 4+ Ð 8.5 aRice IR42 planted 15 days before the main crop (also IR42 rice) was used as the trap crop. Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 39 tween fallow and sudangrass (Davis et al. 1996). cluded lower soil populations, egg hatch, and juvenile The effects of green manures are not well under- penetration and galling (Heald 1987). stood, but probably involve certain breakdown prod- Polyculture using multiline cropping systems has ucts giving rise to detrimental effects in microorgan- decreased the disease incidence of several foliar patho- isms, and a favorable environment for enhancing gens. A mixture of disease-resistant and susceptible microbial activity resulting in biological control (Davis cultivars seems a promising method for controlling et al. 1994). Certain microorganisms, especially a Uromyces bean rust on Phaseolus in Colombia (Panse, number of plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria, Davis, and Fischbeck 1997). In Germany and India, have been shown to be antagonistic to pests or even multilines enable growers to decrease fungicide ap- to induce systemic resistance to crop pathogens (Bark- plications (Wolfe 1990). er and Koenning 1998; Kloepper et al. 1992; Wei, Although in its infancy, crop breeding for polycul- Kloepper, and Tuzun 1996). ture is directed at increasing crop yields and economic returns to the grower (Valenzuela 2000). Research in the area of improving a crop’s ability to perform in Multiple Cropping or Polyculture mixed cultures is difficult to conduct because of the (Intercropping) multitude of interactions; pests will be affected, how- Polyculture, a cultural system common in the de- ever, and research will be needed to identify the veloping world, especially in the tropics (Valenzuela impacts. 2000), can result in higher yields for several reasons. These include decreased weed competition due to soil conservation; dense crop cover; more effective use of Refugia incident radiation, water, and soil nutrients; low to The refugia concept involves the conservation of moderate pest pressure; and diminished economic both pesticide-susceptible individuals within a pest risks (Altieri 1994; Norton and Conway 1977; Valen- population and natural enemies (Altieri 1994). The zuela 2000; Willey 1979). If intercropping or multi- purpose is to prevent populations or subpopulations ple cropping culture is to be understood and used as from being subjected to insecticide selection pressure a widespread means of decreasing pest abundance in and to decrease exposure so as to minimize selection the United States, farmers must become aware of the pressure (DeSouza, Holt, and Colvin 1995). Refugia, mechanisms affecting pest populations. An under- as a system for resistance management, can be insti- standing of mechanisms also would allow improved tuted in various ways: site-specific IPM tended to lim- agronomic use of crop mixtures with respect to spa- it the need for an insecticide to control the Colorado tial arrangements, planting times, and relative crop potato beetle (Midgarden et al. 1997). Site-specific growth-rates, thus making the cultural control sys- IPM conditions created temporarily dynamic un- tem maximally effective (Altieri 1994; Coaker 1987). sprayed refuges within fields and resulted in spatial Intercropping can decrease phytophagus pest lev- variations in insect phenotypes. Where selection pres- els in two ways: (1) natural enemies are favored in in- sure was low on a whole-field basis, susceptible phe- tercropping systems because of wider temporal and notypes of the insect were conserved. In low-spray spatial distribution, increased ground cover, and prey levels of the field, insects were more susceptible to numbers; and (2) associated plant species have a di- insecticide at the end of the season than at the rect effect on the ability of insect herbivores to find beginning. and to use host plants (Coaker 1987). The high dose /refugia strategy has been the focus Polycropping likely would have its greatest effect for resistance management strategies for Bt crops on mobile pests such as flying insects. A definitive since they were first commercialized in 1995 (EPA conclusion is elusive, however, so long as the litera- 1998, 1999, 2001; Gould 1998). This strategy focuses ture remains inconsistent. In a review of some 150 on the transgenic Bt crop producing a high dose of the papers, 53% reported population declines of insects Bt toxin(s) to kill greater than 99% of the susceptible as a result of intracrop diversity (Risch, Andrew, and individuals. The structured refugia of non-Bt fields Altieri 1983). For soilborne organisms, the primary is planted in close enough proximity to the Bt fields impact of intercropping would be decreased dispers- so that the rare resistant individuals will randomly al and overall populations in the field because of a mate with susceptible individuals produced in the nonhost or a poor host. Control of the northern root- refugia fields and produce fully susceptible heterozy- knot nematode with intercropping was associated gous individuals that will be killed by the Bt crop, thus with decreased spread under field conditions that in- diluting resistance. The current resistance manage- 40 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies ment strategies for Bt are briefly discussed in the sec- cycles or help make microclimates unfavorable for tion on “Resistance Management Tactics and Tools– pest and pathogen development and (2) avoid or re- Insects and Mites.” strict outbreaks and epidemics, thus minimizing crop Site-specific IPM also has the potential to conserve damage. In the production of cotton, a program aimed natural enemies (Altieri 1994). In fact, any type of at decreased pesticide use has been implemented suc- management practice maintaining unsprayed areas, cessfully (Summy and King 1992). In addition, after whether unsprayed strips or unsprayed blocks, should the introduction of transgenic Bt cotton into the field help maintain populations of natural enemies and, so, in 1996, pesticide use dramatically decreased (Car- decrease selection pressure on pests. penter et al. 2002; EPA 2001; Gianessi and Carpen- ter 1999). A new era in pest management calls for a new fo- Integrating Cultural Management Programs cus on maintaining natural ecological balances (NRC Pest management clearly must be integrated with 1996). The challenge is to shift from managing com- the cropping system. Through such integration, all ponents or individual organisms to an approach ex- aspects can be manipulated to optimize the benefits amining processes, flows, and relationships among of all practices required for crop production. Area- organisms. The goal is to achieve ecologically based wide implementation of practices can (1) help farm- pest management solutions that are safe, profitable, ers achieve the goal of breaking pest and pathogens and durable.

Ð22.58 to 46.73 Ð2 to 11 (61.8 acre) Ð2 to 16 46.73 to 138.5 11 to 22 (27.4 acre) 16 to 32 138.5 to 262.5 22 to 33 (19.2 acre) 32 to 48 262.5 to 474.7 33 to 44 (9.4 acre) 48 to 64 474.7 to 956.7 44 to 55 (3.4 acre) 64 to 80

AB C

Ð0.1 to 5.2 203.1 to 285.3 5.2 to 10.1 285.3 to 331.4 10.1 to 18.4 331.4 to 375.1 18.4 to 29.5 375.1 to 444.4 29.5 to 47.0 444.4 to 590.3

D E

Figure 2.5. Geo-referenced information on the field distribution of plant pathogens on potatoes and yield that could be useful in designing control strategies while minimizing pesticide use. A. Plant-parasitic nematodes; B. Verticillium; C. Early dying of potato (caused by Verticillium and lesion nematodes); D. Early blight surface; E. Yield of Russett Burbank (> 4 0z) CWT per acre. (Courtesy of W. Stevenson, A. E. MacGuidwin, G.D. Morgan, and L. K. Binning, University of WisconsinÐMadison.) Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 41

versities, state agencies, growers, and agribusinesses. Decision Support Aids and In the upper Midwest, where bean and pea root rot Diagnostic Systems can lead to total crop loss, bioassay of soil samples to assess the risk of root rot on pea and snap beans pro- Field and Region vides information essential to decisions regarding which fields can be planted safely to these crops. Effective IPM programs require accurate and time- Avoiding high-risk fields has saved the industry mil- ly information that is readily available in a usable lions of dollars in the past 30 yr. During the growing form to the grower. Key types of information include season, fields are sampled periodically to determine accurate diagnosis of pest problems, quantification of plant nutrient status, populations of harmful and pests including current populations and distribution, beneficial insects and mites, distribution of weeds, measurement of pest movement over time, preseason and appearance and spread of plant diseases (Figure soil sampling for pests and nutrients, crop monitor- 2.6). These data subsequently serve as the basis for ing during the growing season for pests and nutrient selecting fields for planting with specific crops or crop states, collection of weather data and application of cultivars, adjusting fertility programs, timing pesti- these data to pest prediction models, presampling cide applications, and scheduling harvests. before harvest to determine yield potential, and post- Reliable weather information is a key feature of harvest monitoring of stored products. Traditional- many IPM programs. The interpretation of this in- ly, this information has been acquired by trained personnel engaging in labor-intensive scouting of individual fields. Depending on cropping system and information requirements, fields may be sampled before planting to determine levels of soil fertility, weeds, insects, fungal pathogens, and plant parasitic nematodes. Knowledge of the overwintering populations of important soilborne insect pests assists growers in key management decisions before susceptible crops are planted. Likewise, quantitative information about the soil populations of plant pathogens such as plant par- Figure 2.6. Field scouting with "backpack" that allows for geo- asitic nematodes on several crops (Barker and Davis referencing of information. (Courtesy of W. 1996) and soilborne fungi on potato (Nicot and Rouse Stevenson and associates, University of WisconsinÐ 1987) provides growers with information crucial to the Madison.) management of potential pest problems (Figure 2.5). Early dying of potatoes, caused largely by the com- formation often provides a basis on which to predict bined activity of Pratylenchus penetrans (root lesion crop development, the appearance of important crop nematode) and Verticillium dahliae, leads to prema- pests, and the development of those pests. The inter- ture vine death and decreased potato yield. By sam- pretation also may influence decisions made by man- pling field soils in late summer before the subsequent agement. Numerous crop and pest models useful to spring planting of potatoes, growers can determine implementation of IPM programs have been devel- the soil populations of both pathogens. In fields with oped (Textbox 2.1). Some models are designed sim- populations that exceed economic thresholds, grow- ply and incorporate only a few parameters, such as ers can decide to extend the nonpotato rotations or to maximum and minimum temperatures for the calcu- fumigate as basic methods for decreasing levels of lation of growing degree days (GDD) and physiologi- these pathogens. cal days (P-Days). Other models are much more com- Although these activities are often tedious and time plex, requiring multiple parameters and sophisticated consuming, the economic return more than pays for computer simulations (Russo 2000). The availability grower investments in IPM and results in improved of reliable and inexpensive weather information to pest control with decreased pesticide use. Expansion drive these models continues to improve. of the IPM industry has facilitated greatly the adop- Whereas the federal cooperative weather network tion of IPM programs on a national scale. If adoption traditionally has provided data for early pest models, of IPM technology is to increase, additional partner- advances in technology have made it possible for in- ships must be forged between IPM consultants, uni- dividual growers to own and to operate their own 42 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Textbox 2.1. A model IPM recommendation document for vegetables (Source: M. Haining Cowles, Cornell University)

Integrated Crop and Pest Management The new vegetable recommendations book is written Recommendations for Commercial Vegetable Production, for more than 20 different vegetable cropping systems in a 305-page book published in 1999, is the result of a two- New York. It includes cultural, biological, mechanical, year grant funded by the Northeast IPM Grants program. and chemical pest management options and information Editors Stephen Reiners, Department of Horticultural on cultural and fertility practices and crop varieties. Pest Sciences, NYSAES; Curt Petzoldt, IPM Program; Mike complexes covered are weeds, diseases, insects, and wildlife. Hoffmann, Department of Entomology, Cornell University; The book is organized to allow for easy transition from and Christine Cefalu Schoenfeld, IPM Program, worked the “Elements of IPM” (a list of the latest and best IPM with 19 other discipline editors from Cornell University practices) for each crop to corresponding recommendations. to create this comprehensive volume. The new It is available both in print and on the World Wide Web at Recommendations is a major revision of what was the http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/recommends/. Cornell University Pest Management Recommendations for Vegetable and Potato Production, a document that The revision and the upload onto the Internet were funded focused solely on pesticides. The purpose of the revision by a grant from the USDA Northeast IPM Grants Program was to create a document that provides all pest management #97-EPMP-1-0127. options in a concise, reader-friendly format and that serves as a model for revision of similar pest management recommendations produced in other states and regions. automated weather stations. Growers needing in- programs. In California, for example, a weather data canopy environmental weather data can purchase network of approximately 350 stations located reliable and relatively inexpensive instrumentation throughout the state provides a database of current with which to collect data for use in their IPM pro- and historical daily weather. Growers with access to grams. Many states have developed statewide weath- the Internet can download these data for operation er networks to provide regional and local data for IPM of IPM models (Textbox 2.2) on their farms.

Textbox 2.2. Wisconsin vegetable growers use WISDOM to manage pests (Source: B. Jensen, IPM Program Manager, University of Wisconsin)

WISDOM, the culmination of long-term cooperation ($20/acre saving), and between Wisconsin vegetable growers, the University of ¥ reducing irrigation costs ($4.50/acre savings). Wisconsin researchers, and the University of Wisconsin WISDOM includes profiles of more than 150 key Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program, is decision- vegetable pests with important information on each pest, oriented software. WISDOM helps growers manage including vegetable crop pests using field scouting data and ¥a description of the pest and life cycle, environmental crop conditions. The software includes ¥ the environmental factors influencing pest development, modules to manage insect, disease, and weed control ¥ economic importance and treatment thresholds, practices as well as to schedule irrigation on potato. The ¥ photographs of each pest, key life stages, symptoms/ program also includes modules for disease and insect damage to assist in pest identification, management on snap beans, an important rotational crop ¥ nonchemical and chemical management recommend- in Wisconsin's vegetable industry. ations, and Estimated pesticide and irrigation savings from ¥ scouting and assessment techniques.

WISDOM use on potatoes are approximately $75 /acre. These savings were achieved by WISDOM currently influences 90% of Wisconsin's ¥ eliminating two fungicide sprays and reducing rates potato crop that is grown on 86,000 acres and is valued at

of application ($27.50 /acre saving), approximately $170 million. The program is also used ¥ reducing pre-emergence applications and one successfully in several other potato production areas of postemergence herbicide application ($23/acre saving), the United States and serves as an educational tool in the ¥ eliminating a systemic insecticide application at classroom, demonstrating the value of IPM programs in planting and two to three additional foliar applications potato production. Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 43

More recently, commercial and university efforts have increased regarding production costs and unnec- are leading to site-specific (latitude / longitude specif- essary pesticide use, precise assessment and pest ic) forecasts of environmental information that will monitoring challenges have become increasingly im- allow IPM programs to make accurate real-time pre- portant. Even though approaches to characterizing dictions of pest and crop developments. Providing this infestations of different pest groups differ, the prima- real-time and site-specific information to growers and ry goal always is to facilitate production of healthy to IPM consultants has the potential to improve the plants and crops. This discussion focuses on key clas- reliability of IPM programs. This level of precision is sical and newly developed molecular- and computer- likely to foster adoption of IPM practices and to de- based diagnostic pest technologies. crease further the use of areawide applications of pro- Advanced DNA sensors and sensor arrays for di- phylactic pesticides. rect genetic analysis of pathogens are being developed, primarily for human pathogens (Henkens et al. 2000). In addition to molecular diagnostics, precision Site-Specific (Precision) Agriculture agriculture, which can incorporate global positioning Precision agriculture using geographic information systems (GPS) and GIS, has great potential to facili- systems (GIS) to reference field information has dem- tate identification of site-specific pest-management onstrated its potential in terms of management effi- needs. Geographic information systems also can fa- ciencies (Ellsbury et al. 2000; See Chapter 3). While cilitate delivery of ideal doses of crop-protection early applications dealing with precise application of agents and other production inputs for subunits of the plant nutrients have helped refine the technology, the target area (Hall 2000). potential benefit for pest management applications is In recent years, the range of diagnostic procedures only beginning to be realized in the field. By the link- within agriculture has increased greatly. Many im- ing of existing pest and crop knowledge bases with munological diagnostic tests now are available for GIS technologies, increased efficiencies in pest man- viral and bacterial pathogens, and a number of bio- agement can be introduced into agricultural produc- chemical tests are becoming available for fungal tion. Recognizing the precise in-field location of indi- pathogens (Stewart 2000). Laboratory-oriented tests, vidual pest problems (spacial distribution) and including DNA analyses, also have been developed for viewing this information in the context of precise in- plant parasitic nematodes. The many questions that formation related to fertility, irrigation, and other must be addressed in choosing a diagnostic procedure crop management inputs over time (temporal chang- and determining how to use it were addressed recent- es) can lead to more precise and efficient use of pest ly by Stewart (2000). Field tests are essential for de- and crop management tools. Use of georeferenced termining the utility of a diagnostic procedure for sampling protocols and site-specific applications of IPM. Studies conducted jointly by university and in- control measures will assist growers in the implemen- dustry personnel often address these issues. tation of IPM programs in specific fields (Figures 2.5– In addition to GPS /GIS, remote sensing is an 2.6). The greatest gains, however, likely will be in the emerging technology that can be used to help predict use of this technology on whole farms and on an area- pest pressure and trigger more precise targeting of wide basis where georeferenced information can pro- pest control measures. Through interpretation of the mote IPM efficiencies within the grower community. spectral analysis of reflective light wavelengths, one In Wisconsin, georeferenced risk maps are being de- can indirectly discern the level of pest infestation in veloped to describe potato pest pressures on an area- a field or fields. This technology is likely to be very wide basis. These maps are proving useful to the useful as a diagnostic tool for pest management deci- grower community in planning rotations, allocating sions in IPM programs. An example of using hyper- areas for insect refugia, implementing strategies for spectral analysis approaches to quantify chlorphylls management of resistance to pesticides, and collec- and carotenoids at a leaf and canopy scale is found in tively planning pest management strategies. Blackburn (1998).

Use of Diagnostics Assessment of Insect Infestations Although concepts and approaches related to pest Assessments of insect infestations usually are management depend on the plant protection disci- linked closely to economic thresholds and regulatory plines, diagnosis is crucial to minimizing crop losses programs (Pedigo 1999). Because of the dynamic na- due to insects, pathogens, and weeds. As concerns ture of insect populations, available sampling proce- 44 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies dures for these pests are more advanced than those state, and national agencies often have interests in for other pest groups. Today, insect-infestation as- insect and other pest activities. As has been indicat- sessment frequently goes beyond traditional scouting ed, APHIS provides an extensive regulatory and in- and diagnosis by a skilled specialist, and this is espe- spection system for insect and other plant and animal cially true where resistance to a given insecticide is pests in the United States. encountered (Figure 2.7). Approaches for resistance detection can be biochemical, immunochemical, mo- Pathogen Detection and Diagnoses lecular, or bioassay (Roe et al. 2000). This information is important for maintaining the durability of Detection refers to establishing the presence of a certain target organism in a sample whereas diagnosis refers to identification of the nature and the cause of an observed disease problem (Louws, Rademaker, and deBruijn 1999). Depending on the timeframe, detection and diagnosis can be crucial aspects of an IPM program. One of the primary issues concerning agricultural pest detection and diagnosis is the sampling method. Because of the clustered dispersal patterns of many plant pests, sampling procedures require careful consideration. Once the physical sampling area of interest is defined, other factors such as crop, pathogen(s) of interest, environmental conditions, crop growth stage, and desired testing level are considered (Stew- art 2000). The second step in sampling is to select a random or a systematic sampling method, such as walking a “W” pattern, or another conventional sampling procedure. Variables include sample number and sample size. The specific procedures for pest sampling depend on target organisms and diagnostic methods. So that changes in pathogen numbers can be avoided, samples should be processed as soon as possible after collection. Some pathogens, including certain fungi, may grow throughout the sample whereas others, including plant parasitic nematodes, may decline sharply in number, especially when exposed to adverse conditions. Thus, tissue or soil samples should be treated as perishable products and kept in a cool, dark environment at all times.

Figure 2.7. Using a gasoline-powered insect vacuum, a techni- Virus Tests cian samples the number of spiders at various points in an Oklahoma wheat field. Photo by Scott On numerous crops, and especially on greenhouse Bauer, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Depart- ornamentals, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent as- ment of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. say (ELISA) is the primary method used to detect and to diagnose viral problems (Dinesen and van Zaayen certain insecticides. 1996). This assay has proved to be a highly reliable Data on insect activity, including population shifts, and sensitive, as well as a relatively inexpensive, pro- are fundamental to pest management. Key types of cedure. By means of serological and enzymatic reac- information include long-distance movement, crop tions, ELISA detects the presence of an antigen such invasion, local movement and feeding, and reproduc- as a plant virus. Commercially available kits for de- tion (Barbosa and Schultz 1987; Carlson et al. 1991; tecting groups of viruses including potyviruses aid in Pedigo 1999; Price 1997; Southwood 1978a,b). Local, the testing of plant samples for unknown viral infec- Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 45 tion (Dinesen and van Zaayen 1996). Bioassays us- cation by means of various methods. Traditionally, ing susceptible hosts often are required, however, to nematode morphology and differential hosts have confirm negative ELISA results. been the primary bases on which to identify nematode species and host races. Today, protocols involving immunology, protein electrophoresis, isoelectric focus- Bacteria Tests ing, and a range of DNA-based protocols are used in Numerous polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based laboratories and in research programs (Barker and protocols such as rDNA-based PCR and others have Davis 1996; Fleming and Powers 1998). For IPM been devised and adapted to enhance both the detec- purposes, the presence of nematode-specific symp- tion and the identification of plant pathogenic bacte- toms (galled roots for root-knot nematodes or root le- ria (Louws, Rademaker, and deBruijn 1999). Such sions for lesion nematodes) and signs of nematodes protocols have been used widely in research programs (the pear-shaped or round cysts of the cyst nema- and are resulting in the development of fundamental todes), as well as the typical spotty growth patterns information on the ecology and the population dynam- of a given crop in an infested field, are reliable indi- ics of bacterial pathogens. They remain to be applied cators of nematode problems. Precise identification in IPM programs as related to this group of pathogens, of nematode species, however, continues to be done however. mainly by nematode advisory programs and by re- Additional protocols used for identifying bacteria search laboratories. Nevertheless, protein electro- include immunofluorescence and staining, ELISAs, phoresis, immunology, and DNA-based protocols are and other immunobinding assays (e.g., Lateral Flow beginning to have diagnostic applications. For exam- Strips) (Dinesen and van Zaayen 1996). Currently, ple, an immunological procedure has been used to use of these methods is limited largely to research detect the pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xy- programs and to diagnostic laboratories. lophilus, in wood products such as those intended for international shipment (Lawler and Harmey 1993). Fungi Tests Weed Assessments Although diagnosis of fungal-induced maladies still relies heavily on traditional laboratory-oriented iso- In contrast to other plant pests, weed infestations lation and identification, much progress has been usually develop in most fields in the absence of effec- made in developing immunology-based tests and tive control measures (Kennedy 2000). Most agricul- PCR-based protocols (Dinesen and van Zaayen 1996; tural fields harbor great numbers of seeds of a great Stewart 2000). Commercial ELISA kits now are avail- diversity of weed species (Table 2.5) (Schweizer, We- able for fungi such as Septoria tritici and S. nodor- stra, and Lybecker 1998). Because weeds represent um (Stewart 2000), as well as for other fungi, such as an annual threat to crop yield and quality, most grow- Fusarium species and Rhizoctonia solani. ers use some combination of cultural and herbicidal tools to minimize yield loss from weeds. But in certain instances, growers apply more herbicide than the Nematode Assessments biology of the system warrants. Assessment of the Protection of plant parasitic nematodes and diag- weed-seed bank in target fields is an effective but cost- noses of related problems rely on soil and tissue sam- ly tool in weed diagnosis and management (Wiles and pling, a range of extraction procedures, and identifi- Schweizer 1999). The cost of counting and identify-

Table 2.5. Number of weed seeds/m2 extracted from 50 eastern Colorado corn fields (Courtesy of P. Westra, Colorado State University)

Weed Average number of seeds/sq yard Maximum number of seeds/sq yard

Redroot pigweed 10,700 89,500 Lambsquarter 1,160 7,580 Kochia 10,360 109,200 Velvetleaf 1,270 3,430 Foxtail spp. 7,350 46,000 Barnyard grass 1,990 13,710 Wild-proso millet 2,700 7,160 Sandbur 1,220 4,230 46 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies ing 36 seeds of 4 species ranges from $3 to $11/soil method of pest management employing parasitoids, core, and the cost of counting and identifying 37 seed- predators, pathogens, and entomophyllic nematodes lings of 6 species in a 7-inch by 5-foot quadrat (a sam- (natural enemies) to reduce pest populations.” The pling subunit or cell of land) averages $0.26 /quadrat. National Academy of Sciences defined biological con- The time-density-equivalent concept offers a new trol more inclusively, as the use of natural or modi- approach to weed assessments over a growing season, fied organisms, genes, or gene products, to reduce the but its potential remains to be elucidated (Berti et al. effects of undesirable organisms (pests) and to favor 1996). Scouting fields for weed seedlings in most crops desirable organisms such as crops, trees, animals and is not done systematically. Using standard-sized other beneficial insects, and microorganisms (Cook quadrats on a grid system to count seedlings by spe- 1987). Biological-control organisms may be differen- cies in a field is a precise method but requires an abil- tiated from biological-control products as follows: the ity both to identify weeds by species and, at times, to former are living organisms that can be used to man- count hundreds of seedlings per quadrat. When such age arthropod (mites and insects), weed, and plant data are generated, weed-management decision mod- (bacteria, fungi, viruses, and nematodes) pests and els provide robust, reliable recommendations for weed pathogens; the latter are genes or gene products de- control (Schweizer et al. 1993). Attempts to automate rived from living organisms that kill, disable, or oth- weed-seedling counts by means of remote sensing erwise regulate the behavior of plant pests or biolog- with specialized cameras have met with limited suc- ical-control products (NRC 1996). cess because most fields contain five or more domi- Many insects and plant parasites may remain be- nant weeds, which typically have image signatures low damaging numbers as a result of being suppressed different from the crop signature. Many excellent by natural enemies, without inputs from humans weed-identification guides (e.g., Weeds of the West) (Hoy 2000). Applied technologies used to enhance have been published detailing the identifying char- biological control include three basic approaches: clas- acteristics of weed seedlings and full-grown plants. As sical biological control, augmentation biocontrol, and color guides are integrated into web sites, scouts may conservation (Hoy 2000). Under classical biological be able to access diagnostic materials on-line in the control, natural enemies are imported and established field, to identify weeds or crop injuries due to herbi- to provide long-term control of nonnative and, occa- cides. Site-specific application of herbicides for the sionally, native pests. The success story discussed control of weeds detected by soil sensors also is un- earlier for controlling cottony cushion scale of citrus der evaluation (Hall 2000). is an example of classical biological control. Efforts at augmentation focus on activities fostering build-up of antagonist populations or favoring the beneficial Biological Control effects of natural enemies, including the periodic release of natural enemies. Additional augmentation Although widespread interest in biological control activities include the use of cropping practices favor- has developed only recently, the first success story for ing natural enemies, providing hosts or prey that are biological control in the United States occurred more alternative or fastidious (i.e., have exceptional growth than 100 yr ago. In 1888, the Vedalia lady beetle, requirements), and providing nests, sites, and /or food. Rodolia cardimalis, and the endoparasitic fly, Cryp- Conservation approaches, which may overlap aug- tochetum iceryae, were introduced and deployed effec- mentation activities, focus on practices maintaining tively to control the cottony cushion scale, Icerya pur- existing natural enemies by modifying crop manage- chasi, in California citrus groves. Except where ment practices and other environmental components. disrupted by pesticide applications, these natural Specific methods for conservation include strip crop- enemies of the cottony cushion scale have been used ping, changing planting and/or harvesting times, and effectively ever since in the United States and have altering pesticide-use patterns to preserve natural been distributed to more than 25 additional countries enemies and to enhance their effectiveness (Hoy (Hoy 2000). Even with this more than century-long 2000). success story in biological control, biopesticides still Today, continuing loss of registered pesticides of- constitute only about $1 to 2 billion /yr in a $31 bil- fers a challenge and an opportunity for developing and lion /yr industry (Meneley 2000). deploying biological controls (Hoy 2000). Implemen- Just what is the “biological control” of pests? Def- tation of the Federal Food Quality Protection Act initions differ considerably. Hoy (2000) states that (FQPA) of 1996 in the United States likely will result “biological control of arthropod pests and weeds is a in the loss of pesticides or pesticide uses, especially Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 47 for minor-use crops (See Chapter 14). For these crops, cussed in the following sections, much progress has IPM programs may shift from a pesticide-centered to been made in developing bioinsecticides, bioherbi- a more biologically based system. Compared with tra- cides, microbial fungicides, and bacteriocides, but only ditional synthetic pesticides, biological control or bi- a few bionematicides are in use. opesticides offer a number of advantages, including safety and relative environmental benignity. More- over, related government regulations usually are less Insect Biocontrol cumbersome for biological control or biopesticide With pests continuing to invade new regions of the strategies; there is a less risk that pest-resistance will United States, a situation due partly to globalization develop; biotechnology offers methods for genetically of agriculture and commerce, the need for classical improving strains, as well as new and improved meth- biological controls is growing (Hoy 2000). In addition ods for identifying and processing. Biologically based to the examples listed earlier, citrus insects, includ- IPM interfaces well with sustainable agriculture and ing the leaf miner, round citrus aphid, and psylla, are organic production methods (Meneley 2000). The dis- targets of biological control activities. The success- advantages of biological controls or biopesticides com- ful establishment of one or more foreign, natural en- pared with synthetic pesticides are that the former emies of a target insect in the new environment is have a slower rate of kill; they are less efficacious and crucial to classical biological control. Generally, rates may not provide complete control; they usually con- of successful establishment of these pests range from trol a narrower range of pests; their storage and shelf 16 to 34% (Hoy 2000). The relatively low efficacy of lives are briefer; they may require specialized appli- biocontrols often is a focus of debate. Although cur- cation equipment; they may be incompatible with fer- rent biocontrol efficacy still needs to be improved, tilizers and chemical pesticides; they often are more additional challenges involve characterization of the costly than chemical pesticides (Meneley 2000); and effects of these natural enemies on nontarget species growers may be required to obtain specialized educa- in classical biological control programs. Despite these tion in their use. challenges, a great number of bioinsecticide active ingredients and bioinsecticide products have been developed (Tables 2.6, 2.7) (EPA and USDA 2003). Development of Biopesticide Products Currently, releases of natural enemies of insects for Meneley (2000) states that the biopesticide indus- augmenting biocontrol are directed against insect try still is rather immature, for most companies have pests of greenhouse crops, field-grown strawberries inadequate resources to develop large, intensive dis- or other crops with high case-values, and nurseries. covery programs. Still, the basic cost of $250,000 to The associated high cost and at times low quality of $500,000 for the toxicology testing to meet TIER 1 augmentative biological control are responsible for the data requirements for registering biopesticides with relatively low level of use of this form of control in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is agronomic crops (Hoy 2000). In contrast, as described much less than the estimated $8 million cost for reg- by Stanton, Clement, and Dutky (1999), the very di- istering chemical pesticides (Meneley 2000). A num- verse array of natural enemies of greenhouse crops, ber of useful biocontrol products are not subject to provides an attractive arsenal for insect management EPA regulations, including entomophilic nematodes, of greenhouse crops. Hoy (2000) concludes that the insect predators and parasites, and microscopic par- conservation of natural enemies of insects is limited asites (Hoy 2000). Growth in the biopesticide market by insufficient information on the compatibility of continues to be slow, with an increase from 0.2% of traditional pesticides with natural enemies. With this total pesticide sales in 1988 to approximately 0.4% in understanding, chemical pesticide use may be de- 2000 (Meneley 2000). creased by 50 to 80% without affecting crop quality Although the total volume of biopesticide sales is or yield. For certain insect pests, pesticide use prob- still rather small, the number of biopesticides has ably should not be eliminated completely. Improved increased sharply over the last decade. Today, hun- understanding of how to integrate appropriate pesti- dreds of biocontrol agents are available, through many cide use and conservation biocontrol is especially im- commercial suppliers (Tables 2.6–2.10) (EPA and portant in such situations (Hoy 2000). The integra- USDA 2003; Garcia 2000; Julien and Griffiths 1998). tion of conservation biocontrol with transgenic crops A comprehensive list of microbial pesticides, includ- also warrants careful consideration. For example, using trade names, manufacturers, and suppliers, is ing natural enemies of insects in a system centered provided by Dufour and Bachmann (1998). As dis- on the use of Bt transgenic crops could delay the de- 48 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 2.6. Commercial bioinsecticides (In part, after Dufour and Bachmann [1998] and Meneley [2000])

Active ingredient Trade names Pests controlled Type of action

Abamectin Agrimee, Avid Broad spectrum Toxin Autographa californica VFN80 Alfalfa looper (Autographa californica) Causes disease in larvae Azadivachtin Azatin, Ecozin, Neemax Numerous insects and nematodes IER, repellent Bacillus thuringiensis Agree, Design, Xintari, Mattch Lepidoptera in vegetables and corn Endotoxin var. aizawai B. thuringiensis Vectobac, Gnaterol, Technar, Larvae of mosquitoes, black flies, and midges Endotoxin var. israelensi Bactimos, Aquabac, BMP144, Aquabac, primary powder? Bactis, Teknar B. thuringiensis Dipel Most lepidoptera Endotoxin var. kurstaxi Larvo-BT Larvae with high gut pH Thuricide, Javelin WG, Vault, Raptor, Bactec, Bernan, BMP123, Condor, Cutlass, Foil BFC, Raven, Forwabit, MVP, MVPII, Biobit HP, Biobit 16K WP, Biobit 320B FC, Foray, Foray 48B, Foray 68 B, Futura, Bactosisk, Agrobac, Troy-BT, Biocot B. thuringiensis Norodor, M-Trak Colorado potato beetle and Stomach poison var. tenebrionis some other leaf beetles B. papilliae Doom, Japademic Larvae of Japanese beetles, chafers, Stomach poison some May and June beetles B. sphaericus Vectolex Bacterium Beauveria bassiana Naturalis-L, Naturalis-O, Mole cricket, chiggers, white grubs, fire ants, Insect-specific fungus (ornamentals), Naturalis-T (turf), flea beetle, boll weevil, white flies, plant bug, Ostrinil, Mycotrol, Botanigard grasshoppers, thrips, aphids, mites, and others Granulosis virus Capex Leafroller Disease-causing virus (Baculoviruses) Cyd-X Codling moth Heliosis zeae Gemstar LC Lepidoptera Disease-causing virus Nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) Heterorhabditis spp. Larvanem Lepidoptera larvae Parasitic nematodes Heterorhabditis Otinem, Cruiser, Lawn patrol Blackvine weevil, turf grubs (including Parasitic nematodes bacteriophora Japanese beetle) and other soil insects Logenidium giganteum Laginex Mosquitoes Fungal Mamestra brassecae Mamestrin Trichoplusia, Heliothis, Diparopsis, Disease-causing virus Nuclear polyhedrosis Phthorimaca operculella (potato tuber moth) virus (NPV) Metharizium anisophae Bay Bio1020, BioBlast Soil-inhabiting beetle, termites Pathogenic fungus Nosome locustae Nolo-bait, Semaspore NAa Protozoan Paecilomyces PFR97 White flies, aphids, and thrips Fungal parasite/antagonist tumosoroseus Syngrapha falcifera, Celery looper virus Lapidoptera Pathogenic on larvae Nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) Spodoptera exigua NPV Otienem-5, Spod-X Beet army worm (Spodoptera exigua) Pathogenic on larvae Steinernema carpocapsae Bio-Safe, BioVector, Ecomask, Black vine weevil, strawberry root weevil, Pathogenic nematode Seanmask, Guardian cranberry girdler, and other insects Steinernema feltiae Nemasys, Nemasys M, Larvae of vine weevils and fungus gnats Pathogenic nematode Otienem-S, Entonem aNA = not available Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 49

Table 2.7. Additional bioinsecticides/biocides (In large part, after Meneley [2000])

Active ingredient Trade name Type

Abamectin Agrimec, Avid Toxin Azadirechtin Azatin, Ecozin Neemen IGR repellent Capsaicin Hot pepper wax Plant extract Cinnamaldehyde Cinnamite, Cinnacure, Hefty/Sergeant repellent Toxin, repellent Cyromozine Citation, Trigard, Larvadex IGR Diatomecceous earth Various formulations Abrasive Diflubenzuron Dimilin IGR Fexoxy carb Precision, Comply IGR Horticultural oils Sunspray UF, Stylet oil Light oils Hydropene Gentrol, Mator IGR Kinopene Enstar II IGR Methopene Altosid IGR Neem oil extract Triact Toxin Orange oil Power Plant, Scant-off Repellent Potassium bicarbonate Armicarb, Remedy Toxin Pyrethrum Various formulations Toxin Pyriproxyfan Distance, Pyrigro, Knack IGR Sabadilla Red Devil, Natural Guard M-Pede Alkaloid Insecticide soap Spinosad Conserve, Spintor, Success Toxin Sulfur/lime sulfur Various formulations Toxin velopment of insect resistance to Bt in transgenic management have focused on introduced weeds be- plants (Hoy 2000). cause such pests usually have escaped their natural enemies (Mortensen 1998). In conjunction with a strategy greatly decreasing the competitive advan- Weed Biocontrol tage of introduced weeds, numerous bioherbicides Insects and mites, microbial plant pathogens, nem- have had excellent results, controlling as much as 90 atodes, and fish have been used successfully as bio- to 100% of the target weed (Charudattan 2000). Bio- logical control agents of weeds in the United States herbicides often involve use of a plant pathogen as a and elsewhere (Charudattan 2000). Insects have been weed-control agent by means of inundative and re- deployed successfully as biological control agents of peated applications of inoculum or through augmen- weeds for many years (Mortensen 1998). Much re- tation of natural, seasonal disease levels, with smaller search also has been aimed at exploiting microbial- releases of inoculum. Because plant pathogens ap- plant pathogens as classical and inundative biocon- plied as prescriptive weed controls are considered a trol agents of weeds (Charudattan 2000). Plant form of pesticide (Charudattan 2000), these organ- parasitic nematodes also have been used in classical isms must be registered and approved as biopesticides and augmentative biocontrol of weeds, and grass carp in the United States and in many other countries. (Ctenopharyngodon idlla) can be effective as a non- Some 250 bioherbicidal agents with proven effica- selective herbivore for managing submerged aquatic cies have been reported, but only a small number of vegetation. Thus, biological approaches for weed related commercial products have reached the mar-

Table 2.8. Promising bioherbicides (In large part, after Charudattan [2000], Dufour and Bachmann [1998], and McFadyen [1998])

Active ingredient Trade names Pests controlled Type of action

Cerosporella ageratinae NAa Pamakani weed Fungal pathogen Chonodrostereum purpureum Biochon Stump-treatment product Prevents resprouting Colleotrichumn gloesporioides f. sp. aeschynomene Collego Northern joint vetch Pathogenic fungus C. gleosporioides f. sp. malvae Biomal Round-leared mallow Pathogenic fungus Cylindrobasidium laeve Stumpout Stump-treatment Prevents resprouting Phytophthora palmivora Devine Strangler vine Morrenia odorata (citrus in Florida) Root pathogen Puccinia canaliculata Dr. BioSedge Yellow nut-sedge Obligate parasite++ Xanthomonas campestris X-PO Turf weeds Pathogenic bacterium X. campestris pv. poae CAMPERICO Annual bluegrass Bacterial pathogens aNA = not available 50 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 2.9. Commercial microbial bacteriocides (In part, after Dufour and Bachmann [1998] and Loper and Stockwell [2000])

Active ingredient Trade names Pests controlled Type of action

Agrobacterium radiobacter Norbac 84, Galltrol, Nogall, Diegall Crown gall caused by Agrobacterium tumefaciens Antagonist Pseudomonas fluorescens Conquer Pseudomonas tolassí on mushrooms Antagonist P. fluorescens Blight Ban A506 Erwinia amylovora on apple, cherry, almond, peach, pear, potato, strawberry, tomato Antagonist P. fluorescens or strain NCIB12089 Victus P. tolassí bacterial blotch on mushrooms Antagonist Pseudomonas syringae Bio-Save 10, 11, 100, 110, 1000 Postharvest pathogens on apples, pear, citrus Antagonist ketplace (Charudattan 2000; Liebman, Mohler, and range on multiple-weed infestations (Charudattan Staver 2001). Factors hindering development include 2000). This multiple-pathogens strategy has great the narrow host-specificity of weed pathogens, early potential for greenhouse operations, where few con- hurdles in developing formulations that would yield ventional herbicides can be used. Still, the fact that a shelf life of 1 to 2 yr for the product at room temper- only five bioherbicides are available currently for com- ature, unknown interactions with conventional pes- mercial use suggests the challenges that this endeavor ticides, and limited support from industry (Charudat- will meet. Although the successes for biological con- tan 2000; Green et al. 1998). trol of weeds have been limited, greater understand- But with public pressures to eliminate pesticides ing of the ecology of weeds and their antagonists in IPM programs increasing, extensive efforts are should advance this tactic as well as contribute to the being made to control weeds through biological ecological management of weeds (Charudattan 2000; means. In addition to the organisms listed in Table Liebman, Mohler, and Staver 2001). 2.8, many weed pathogens are under evaluation as potential biocontrol agents in the United States and other countries. Some of the pathogen-based weed Biocontrol of Plant Pathogens, Including control combinations under precommercial study in- Nematodes clude Alternaria destruens on dodder (Cuscuta spp.), As with conventional plant-disease control, much Ascochyta caulina, common lambsquarters, (Chenop- effort has been directed at the development of effec- odium album), Colletotrichum truncatum, Sesbania, tive strategies and tactics for biological control of plant Sesbania exaltata, and others (Charudattan 2000). pathogens. Although the goal has been to develop Rhizobacteria also are receiving considerable study effective biocontrols based on ecological principles, as potential weed controls, especially for grassy weeds many highly complex ecological interactions of soil- and cereal crops (Mortensen 1998). For example, borne pathogens with resident fauna and microflora application of Pseudomonas fluorescens for control of remain to be elucidated. Much progress has been downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in winter wheat has made, nevertheless, in developing efficacious biocon- led to increased wheat yields and to suppressed over- trols of numerous plant pathogens. Currently, at least all growth and seed production of downy brome. The 37 biocontrol agents are available commercially (Lop- very rich and dynamic microfauna and microflora of er and Stockwell 2000). The discovery of Agrobacte- the rhizosphere can be affected greatly by cultural rium radiobacter K84, a highly effective biocontrol of practices, including crop rotations. Improved under- the crown-gall pathogen, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, standing of the biology and the ecology of the rhizo- was a major breakthrough in both plant pathology sphere is essential if the efficacy of these types of bio- and plant disease biocontrol (Loper and Stockwell control agents is to be enhanced (Mortensen 1998). 2000). As a result of this landmark research, much Postemergent and pre-emergent applications of of the subsequent research on biological controls for multiple-pathogen inocula offer promise for control- plant disease has focused on single, empirically select- ling multiple-weed infestations (Charudattan 2000). ed biocontrol agents to suppress a given target patho- For example, the combination of three fungal pathogen. Examples of available products that are effec- gens, Brechslera gigantea, Exserohilum londiristra- tive in controlling diseases induced by bacteria or tum, and E. rostratum, when applied as an emulsion, fungi appear in Tables 2.9 and 2.10. A comprehen- was effective in killing seven weedy grasses. Specific sive list of registered biopesticides in the United formulations of the inocula are crucial for improving States is available (EPA and USDA 2003). level of control, consistency of performance, and host- In recent years, because of the variable efficacy Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 51

Table 2.10. Commercial microbial fungicides (In part, after Dufour and Bachmann [1998], Meneley [2000], and Loper and Stockwell [2000])

Active ingredient Trade names Pests/Disease controlled Type of action

Ampelomyces quisqualis AQ-10 Powdery mildew Hyperparasite Bacillus cereus Pix Plus Leaf spot of peanut Antagonist B. subtilis Epic, Kodiak, System 3, Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Alternaria + Aspergillus that Antagonist Kodiak HB, Quantum 4000 cause root rots and seedling diseases Burkholderia cepacia Deny, Blue Circle, Intercept Fusarium, Pythium, Phytophthora Bacterial antagonist Candida oleophila Aspire Postharvest pathogens Botrytis, Penicillium Fungal antagonist Gliocladium spp. Gliomix Soilborne fungal pathogens Antagonist Gliocladium virens Soil Guard Soilborne fungal pathogens, especially Antagonist Rhizoctonia solani + Pythium spp. Phelbia gigantea Rotstop Rust fungus, Heterobasidíon annosum on pine Fungal parasite and spruce Pseudomonas syringae Bio-Save 10, 11, 100, Postharvest pathogens on apple, pear, citrus Antagonist 110, 1000 Pseudomonas sp. plus Azospirillum BioJet Soilborne pathogens that cause brown patch and Antagonist dollar spot Pythium oligandrum Polygandron Pythium ultimum on sugarbeet Antagonist Streptomyces griseoviridis Mycostop Soilborne pathogens: Alternia, Botrytis, Fusarium, Phomopsis, Pythium, Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia Antagonist Streptomyces hydicus Acinovete Soilborne pathogens as listed above Antagonist Trichoderma harzianum RootShield, Bio Trek 22G, Soilborne pathogens: Botrytis, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Parasite/Antagonist? Supresivit, T-22G, T-22 HB, Sclerotium, Verticillium, and others Trichodex T. harzianum + T. polysporum Binab Tree-wound pathogens Mycoparasites T. harzianum + T. viride Trichopel, Trichojet, Armillaria, Botryosphaeria, and other fungi Antagonist/Parasite Trichodowels, Trichoseal encountered over space and time with available con- Rhodotorula glutinis and the bacterium Bacillus trol products, considerable progress has been forth- megaterium offers promise for controlling the patho- coming in the development of more innovative ap- genic fungus Botrytis cinerea (Wilson 1997). The bac- proaches. Recently developed strategies include the terium Pseudomonas fluorescens A506 and the strep- formulations of mixtures of biocontrol agents and tomycin-resistant derivative of Pantoea agglomerans their integration in field and greenhouse situations; can be combined with the antibiotic streptomycin for the exploitation of rhizobacterially mediated systemic controlling fire blight in affected orchards (Wilson induced host resistance; and the integration of biolog- 1997). ical and conventional pesticides (Wilson 1997). Ad- As has been suggested, certain pathogen antago- ditional approaches to enhancing efficacy of biologi- nists may have both direct suppressive effects on cal controls include genetic manipulation of biological pathogens and indirect effects by inducing the host control agents and improved fermentation and formu- to acquire systemic resistance (Loper and Stockwell lation procedures favoring their longer-term surviv- 2000; Wilson 1997). Certain growth-promoting rhizo- al and activity (Loper and Stockwell 2000). bacteria, in fact, may induce certain host plants to Formulation of mixtures of pathogen antagonists become resistant to different types of plant pathogens. has considerable potential. For example, a mixture For example, rhizobacteria may induce systemic re- of Trichoderma harzianum T-95 and Pythium nunn sistance to cucumber foliar pathogens such as proved much more effective in controlling Pythium Pseudomonas syringae pv. lacrymans and Colletotri- damping-off of cucumber in different soil preparations chum orbiculare (Wei, Kloepper, and Tuzun 1996). than either organism alone did (Loper and Stockwell The bacteria Bacillus sphaericus B43 or Agrobacteri- 2000). Use of the product GREY GOLD, which con- um radiobacter G12 may induce resistance to the po- sists of the fungi Trichoderma hamatum and tato cyst nematode Globodera pallida (Hoffman-Her- 52 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies garten et al. 1997). The development of cropping sys- Additional Methods for Enhancing tems favoring or augmenting the build-up of rhizobac- Biocontrols teria has much promise for exploiting these biocontrol agents for large farm operations (Barker and Agricultural crops, which occupy approximately 25 Koenning 1998; Kloepper et al. 1992). to 30% of land worldwide, greatly affect biological di- A wide range of other antagonistic bacteria, nem- versity (Altieri 1994). Especially in Europe, widely atode trapping fungi, predaceous nematode species, used practice favoring the build-up of beneficial or- and other soil fauna has considerable promise in the ganisms such as insects, involves the maintenance of biological control of plant parasitic nematodes (Ker- an abundant food supply in the form of polycultures ry and Evans 1996; Stirling 1991). Numerous species (refugia) or farmscaping (Altieri 1994; Dufour and of fungi such as Paecilomyces lilacinus and Verticilli- Greer 1995). um chlamydosporium have provided nematode con- Farmscaping has been defined as the use of hedge- trol under greenhouse and certain field conditions, but rows, insectary plants, cover crops, and water reser- have not been used effectively on a large-scale basis. voirs to attract and to support populations of benefi- More fundamental information on soil ecology is need- cial organisms such as insects, bats, and birds of prey ed before biological control of plant parasitic nema- (Dufour and Greer 1995). The nectar, pollen, and todes can be implemented. honeydew (from aphids feeding on plants) on flower- Conventional biocontrol agents, including mixtures ing plants, as well as the herbivorous insects and of antagonists, have much promise for highly con- mites, serve as food for natural enemies of pests. The trolled environments such as greenhouse operations. concepts of farmscaping or refugia refer to the devel- For example, Burholderia cepacia and binucleate opment of cropping systems enhancing plant diversi- Rhizoctonia strains provide excellent biological con- ty and disrupting associated pest life cycles and oth- trol of root-rot diseases of azalea and other woody or- er pest insect activities. namentals in soilless greenhouses (Burns and Ben- The goal is to provide a highly species-diverse en- son 2000). In contrast, these same organisms provide vironment, or extensive biodiversity, so that a vari- only limited control of Rhizoctonia solani on cotton ety of habitats and niches are available for organisms and standard soil mixes even in the greenhouse. Oth- to exploit (Altieri 1994; Dufour and Greer 1995). This er antagonists, namely Pseudomonas fluorescens and approach recaptures some of the natural ecosystem Gliocladium virens, provide acceptable levels of patho- diversity lost in monocultures (Altieri 1994). Anoth- gen biocontrol on greenhouse plants (Loper and Stock- er benefit is decreased pesticide application. In the well 2000). selection of cover crops and other plants as tools for Biocontrol also has potential in the management this purpose, care must be paid to favor sustainable of postharvest disease. Certain high-value fresh foods soil fertility while avoiding plants that would serve are stored under controlled environmental conditions as plant virus reservoirs or favor soilborne pests such and usually are monitored for associated diseases. As as nematodes and other root pathogens. Extensive illustrated in Tables 2.9 and 2.10, commercial biocon- lists of candidate plant species, including certain trol products are becoming available for managing weeds and associated beneficials that mesh with poly- postharvest disease, but this tactic to date has had cultures, are available (Altieri 1994). only limited application. A range of new technologies offers much promise A very different type of biocontrol involves the use for enhancing the biological control of many crop of strain-specific bacterial viruses for suppressing pests. In addition to the widely deployed insect- ineffective nitrogen-fixing Bradyrhizobium or Rhizo- resistant and herbicide-tolerant transgenic crop cul- bium. Bacteriaphages or rhizobiophages commonly tivars, technologies include the potential to genetical- occur in the rhizosphere of legumes, in which they ly improve natural enemies (Hoy 2000) (e.g., trans- may affect the nitrogen-fixing capacity of Bradyrhizo- genic entomopathogenic nematodes and other bium or Rhizobium in root nodules (Kuykendall and entomopathogens, parasitoids, and predators). Hashem 1998). To enhance nitrogen-fixing capacity Through identification and use of appropriate genes, in fields, simultaneous introductions of effective rhizo- transgenic natural enemies surviving even in adverse biophage-resistant Rhizobia strains and phages vir- environments may become available for biocontrol. ulent to ineffective strains in the soil will increase Undoubtedly, molecular approaches to taxonomy productivity and sustainability of the target crop, es- and ecological studies will facilitate the arrival of ef- pecially in soils where nitrogen is limiting (Kuyken- fective biological controls for a range of pest. In ad- dall and Hashem 1998). dition to rapid, precise identifications of the most ef- Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 53 fective strains of growth-promoting rhizobacteria, the direct-market operators close to major population exploitation of nitrogen-fixing bacteria, mycorrihizal centers. fungi, and beneficial nematodes will be enhanced as Large commodity-producers have been forced to a result of their integration into well-planned crop- increase efficiency so as to survive on smaller and ping systems. In this way, crop productivity and bio- smaller margins. Farm-gate returns for commodities logical control of targeted pests will be enhanced. such as small grains and potatoes have grown less than 3 times on a per-unit basis in the last 45 yr (Smith 1992), and net returns for certain commodi- Pesticides ties have actually declined over this period. Mean- while, value-added, vertically integrated food compa- Ecologically based IPM is a promising option for nies and retailers have experienced an increase in decreasing negative pesticide impacts and agricultur- per-unit food price, which has grown 400% over the al production in the twenty-first century (Liebman, same period. For the most part, agricultural produc- Mohler, and Staver 2001; NRC 1996). Many early IPM ers have not shared in this expansion. Many large- proponents have predicted that pesticide inputs in scale producers have integrated chemically intensive agriculture eventually would be displaced by biologi- IPM systems skillfully with sustainable agricultural cally intensive IPM tools, tactics, and strategies. tactics practical for large-scale farms. Pesticides re- Their optimism has diminished somewhat in light of main essential because their consistent performance findings that pesticide use in the United States has provides stability for businesses operating on small stabilized since the mid-1980s, at around 1.0 billion margins. pounds of active ingredient annually. Pesticide use in If there is growth in the number of agriculture pro- countries with rapidly developing economies, especial- ducers, it is in the number of small, diversified pro- ly in the Pacific Rim nations, has grown at rates some- duction systems focused on niche or direct marketing. times exceeding 8% annually (EPA 1999). Pesticides These producers often target horticultural crops and likely will continue to be among the primary tools of may provide recreation for consumers wishing to IPM (Jacobsen and Backman 1993). “pick-their-own” vegetables, bedding plants, or ornamentals on visits to roadside produce establishments or farmers’ markets. These producers also may rep- Why Do Pesticides Remain a Critical resent an alternative production system or lifestyle Component? that suburban and/or urban consumers value (e.g., Answering this question requires a review of the organic, biodynamic, or low-input sustainable agricul- biological, legal, sociological, trade, and, ultimately, tural systems). Often these producers use aspects of economic factors driving pesticide use. In the end, IPM, although they may not identify them as such. pesticides remain the least complex, most effective, Pesticides are essential in many of these operations, and least expensive short-term solution to pest sup- and not only because effective nonpesticide alterna- pression in many, if not most, pest management sys- tives are lacking for certain crops. Time, education, tems. Additionally, pest management is complex be- and economic constraints also may prevent produc- cause pests themselves are complex, and their effects ers from implementing complex biologically based on society are pervasive. Pesticides are used in vir- pest-control systems. tually every theater of human existence. They are Farm-related regulations have become more nu- used in all aspects of producing, processing, storing, merous and complex since the early days of IPM, and packaging, transporting, and marketing food. They these regulations sometimes inhibit implementation are used in manufacturing, right-of-way manage- of IPM (Kennedy and Sutton 2000; see Chapter 14). ment, forestry, schools, parks, golf courses, and mu- Hundreds of laws regulate all aspects of farm-relat- nicipalities, and in more than 90 million U.S. house- ed businesses, including finances, pesticide use, pes- holds (FCH 2001; Hall and Menn 1999). ticide storage, pesticide application equipment, equip- Today’s food production systems operate in a ment operation, occupational safety, transportation, complex global market characterized by extreme com- land use, crop storage, pest damage and contamina- petition. Producers in the United States are increas- tion, commodity grades and standards, labeling, ex- ingly bimodal: either they are large commodity-pro- port market access, genetically modified organisms ducers with large production units that remain (GMOs), seed and production license or contract ar- profitable through high-volume sales with low per- rangements, surface water, ground water, odor gen- unit margins; or they are small, diversified niche or eration, chemical trespass, taxes, inheritance and 54 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies ownership, right to farm, labor, open land, riparian Pesticides often are the only short-term pest control areas, wetlands, and wildlife habitat for endangered alternative available, especially when local, state, or species. federal laws mandate eradication. This issue is exac- Understandably, many producers cannot comply erbated when the “new pest” actually is the same spe- fully with the many regulations confronting their cies as an indigenous pest, but with additional fea- operations, and the time and energy required for tures such as new or different capacities to transmit mandated paperwork decreases time available for diseases (vector competence), pesticide resistance, or actively managing crop production. Furthermore, expanded host plant range. These latter capacities are product grades and standards, contractual arrange- almost intractable, as evidenced by the recent intro- ments, farm credit and market access all may require, duction of a new biotype or species of Bemesia white directly or indirectly, low levels of pest damage achiev- fly throughout the Southwest and the soybean aphid able only with pesticides. in the Midwest. Pesticides also are essential tools for helping farm- Economics and temporal/spatial scale issues often ers meet market grade and phytosanitary standards force growers to attempt to produce the highest re- imposed by brokers, food processors, the USDA, the turns even if variety, geographical location, or other Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or export mar- factors make achieving this goal unlikely. For in- kets. For example, sooty blotch and flyspeck diseas- stance, there are four grades of apples recognized by es cause only superficial blemishes on apple fruit, but the USDA: Extra Fancy, Fancy, US #1, and Utility. the USDA grade standards and consumer expecta- The difference in return between Extra Fancy, and tions limit the size of blemishes acceptable in top- Fancy and Utility often exceeds tenfold. Thus, many grade fruit. Assuming that the dark fungal blemish- producers of high-value horticulture crops are risk- es represent pesticide residues on fruit, consumers at averse: rather than risk a damaged crop and a de- farmers’ markets sometimes have refused to buy ap- creased grade, they apply pesticides. ples with sooty blotch. In other instances, pesticide The dynamics of weather, regional climates, and applications are required to minimize insect contam- pest geographical and host range often encourage ination in processed food products. Baby food manu- pesticide use. Certain regions have diverse pest and facturers, for example, reject loads of pears if the fruit climatic conditions that exacerbate pest problems. contain Comstock mealy bugs in the calyx. These The humid central and eastern United States, for insects do not cause significant damage to the fruit example, uses more fungicide and bactericide than the but do contribute to detectable insect parts in the pro- irrigated, arid West does. Apple maggots appear pri- cessed product. Many export markets demand a cer- marily in the Northeast, and fire ants in the South- tain level of pesticide input to guarantee elimination east. Pink bollworms appear in the Southwest, and of exotic pests threatening their own agricultural sys- orange tortrix in the Northwest. Weather differenc- tems. These phytosanitary demands can function as es and pest vagaries constitute the backdrop influenc- nontariff trade barriers if the costs of additional re- ing regional differences in pesticide use in IPM quired inputs make the resulting product noncompet- programs. itive in the international marketplace. Although often requiring greater volumes of pesti- Another significant factor driving pesticide use is cide inputs than conventional pest management pro- the introduction of new species, biotypes, and races grams do, alternative production systems such as or- of pests. More than half of all economically important ganic agriculture have escaped pesticide residue arthropod pests in the United States have been intro- scrutiny because the pesticides used have tended to duced from foreign countries (OTA 1993). These pests be less toxic, analytical methods for certain organic have arrived by numerous routes. Certainly, global pesticides (e.g., sprayable compost teas) have not been trade and mass transportation account for many new developed, and many policymakers and consumers be- pest species introductions annually, but trade is not lieve that organic fruits and vegetables are produced the only source. Long-range transport on weather without the use of any pesticides (see Chapter 4). The systems also is a documented method of pest intro- EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and duction. The issue is more complex than the intro- Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) defines a pesticide as any- duction of new pest species, however. When a new thing that kills, repels, or mitigates a pest. Under this pest is introduced, it usually comes without its natu- definition, elemental sulfur is a pesticide that is used ral enemies; there are, therefore, few or no biological heavily by organic and conventional farmers to con- controls operating in its new habitat. As a result, new trol plant diseases. Sulfur must be used at rates of pest populations sometimes grow to crisis proportions. 10 to 20 lb /a. /application, whereas other fungicides Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 55 can provide equivalent or better disease control when by repelling aphid vectors in certain vegetable crops. used at rates of as low as 2 oz. /a. Despite societal con- Pesticides can be used as tools for adjusting eco- cerns about pesticide use, the use of sulfur has explod- logical predator-prey balances within crops and as ed in Europe and the United States. In California, backstops to arrest pest populations exceeding estab- for instance, sulfur use has increased dramatically in lished economic thresholds (Kennedy and Sutton the last 5 yr, and it is one of the most-cited products 2000). For example, miticides frequently are used to in medical injury-complaints generated by pesticide adjust ecological balances between predatory and use (Reigart and Roberts 1999). This paradox is just plant damaging species in various cropping systems. one outcome in an array of perceptions and societal In apples, populations of European red mites some- valuations that make pesticide use so complex and times reach economic thresholds before predators controversial. reach populations necessary for biological controls to Pesticides are likely to remain important compo- work. When selective miticides kill more pests than nents of IPM because they are relatively easy, effec- beneficials, populations of European red mites can be tive, and inexpensive to use. Historically, their neg- suppressed until populations of predatory mites reach ative effects have been relatively long term and have densities at which biological control will be success- escaped detection for long periods. Pesticides devel- ful. Thus, a pesticide can serve various functions de- oped over the past 10 to 15 yr, however, have been pending on pest, crop, crop phenology, and geograph- screened more carefully for adverse nontarget effects, ic region. and these newer products can provide safe, effective, Protectant fungicides often are used to prevent ini- and efficient pest control for many crops. tial pest infestations and thereby decrease the total number of sprays needed to protect a crop during secondary infection periods. For example, four or five The Role of Pesticides timely fungicide applications during spring can pre- The role of pesticides in IPM systems depends on vent establishment of apple scab in apple orchards in the specifics of crop, pest, region, site, weather, and the northeastern United States. If primary scab in- economics. Furthermore, pesticide usage changes fections are not prevented, then five to eight addition- constantly as research and field experience lead to al fungicide sprays may be needed to prevent second- alternative pest protection systems, improved moni- ary infections on apple fruit during summer. toring methods, and improved understanding of pest In many crop /pest systems, pest populations are biology. Because they decrease risks of major crop monitored, and pesticides are used only when pest losses, which otherwise would make a production sys- populations exceed an economic threshold, which re- tem economically nonviable, pesticides are crucial fers to the pest population density at which crop loss IPM components for most crops. Farmers often are exceeds the cost of intervention (Kennedy 2000). Pro- forced by simple economics to avoid high-risk endeav- ducers especially value pesticides that can provide ors such as those involving crops subject to uncontrol- rapid knock down as a population approaches a criti- lable pest infestations. Today, effective and practical level. Availability of pesticides that can arrest pest cal nonpesticidal alternatives are lacking for many development at critical thresholds adds flexibility to pests in high-value crops. Even where pest popula- IPM programs because farmers have more opportu- tions are managed by means of biological or cultural nities to incorporate biological, cultural, sanitation, methods, farmers often view pesticides as essential and preventive strategies if they know pesticides are tools for rescuing crops threatened by unusual pest available to rescue a crop, should alternative manage- infestations or unexpected failures of biologically ment strategies fail. based IPM strategies. Pesticides can be used proactively to decrease densities of pests before they become established in crops. Effects of Changing Fungicide, Herbicide, Alternatively, pesticides can be used as repellents, and Insecticide Chemistries causing pests to avoid stored food, packaging, and Trends in New Chemistry crops. For example, pyrethroid insecticides applied to apple trees provide protection against the 17-yr In the last 10 to 20 yr, the pesticide industry has cicada because cicadas quickly migrate back out of undergone a remarkable transformation. In the 1960s orchards sprayed with even very low dosages of the to 1970s, as the petrochemical industry matured, pes- synthesized natural insecticide. The repellent effects ticide companies that for the most part were subsid- of pyrethroids also may decrease viral transmission iaries were spun off into stand-alone companies. With 56 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies decreased profitability and a slowdown in discovery 3. New fungicides often have both postinfec- and registration, fewer new pesticide products were tion and protectant activities, whereas old brought to the market in the 1980s. Increasing regis- fungicides were mainly protectants. Fungi- tration restrictions in the United States, Canada, and cides with postinfection activity can be applied Europe further focused industry discovery efforts to- after an infection period has occurred, thereby ward safer, narrower spectrum, environmentally decreasing the need for prophylactic spraying friendlier chemistries. These trends, together with the based on weather forecasts lacking precision or horizontal and vertical integration of the pharmaceu- reliability. The combined protectant and postin- tical industry, led to an aggregation of smaller pesti- fection activities of new fungicides allow for in- cide companies into larger and larger conglomerates creasingly flexible spray timing and improved in- in the 1990s. tegration of disease-, insect-, and mite-control In the waning years of the twentieth century, life strategies. science companies emerged. These multinational con- 4. New fungicides usually are labeled at rates glomerates often merged pesticide companies into providing little margin for error in sprayer companies that previously had focused on pharmaceu- calibration. Labeling products at the minimal ticals, information science, and molecular biology. effective rate allows manufacturers to address en- The evolution of conglomerates is continuing, but, vironmental and consumer concerns while im- more recently, certain conglomerates have sold off proving profitability to the manufacturer. Man- agriculture-related or pesticide units because of low ufacturers can charge competitive rates per acre profit margins. for a product while minimizing the amount of Passage of the FQPA in the United States galva- product that must be applied. When products are nized the move toward safer, more ecologically and labeled at minimum effective rates, sprayer cali- environmentally friendly pesticides. Today, there is bration and optimal spray timing become increas- an array of new synthetic chemistries, fermentation ingly important; both issues are addressed with- products, semiochemicals (compounds involved in in IPM programs. communication among organisms, such as pheromones in insects), natural chemistries, and transgenic 5. New fungicides are single-site inhibitors ar- crops or microorganisms that are transforming the resting fungal development by interfering face of IPM in nearly every pest management area with a single biochemical pathway. Such (Kennedy and Sutton 2000). products must be managed carefully to avoid selection of fungicide- resistant strains. Integrat- Trends in Fungicides and Bactericides ed pest management programs incorporate resistance management. Trends in fungicide development over the past The strobilurin fungicide group is an example of 30 yr have had important effects on IPM programs. fungicide chemistry developed during the 1990s (Ted- 1. New fungicides often control a more limit- ford and Brown 2000; Ypema and Gold 1999). Devel- ed range of pathogens than old broad-spec- opment of this group resulted from the discovery in trum fungicides controlled. As a result, the the 1970s that a certain wood-decaying fungus grow- process of identifying pathogens to be controlled ing in Europe contained powerful antifungal com- and selecting the appropriate fungicide has be- pounds. The natural compound was modified by var- come more complex. Producers and farmers are ious agrochemical corporations to produce the more willing to hire IPM experts to provide pro- photostable azoxystrobin, trifloxystrobin, pyraclos- fessional services. trobin, and kresoxim-methyl chemistries. These fungicides have low toxicities to mammals and, because 2. New fungicides are expensive. Integrated they break down quickly in soil and water, negligible pest management programs allow farmers to op- environmental risk. In addition to being effective timize spray timing and fungicide selection. against many pathogens at very low rates (approxi-

Farmers are becoming aware that fungicides are mately an ounce active ingredient /a.), they have ac- investments that may not produce a positive eco- tivity against a broad range of fungal pathogens, in- nomic return if applied incorrectly. This aware- cluding both downy mildew and powdery mildew on ness has caused many farmers to embrace IPM grape. They also have postinfection and protectant as the best strategy for optimizing investments in activities and work by inhibiting mitochondrial res- new fungicides. piration in fungi. But because these fungicides could Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 57 be compromised quickly by the selection of resistant exciting new technology for managing recalcitrant pathogen strains, label restrictions require that they bacterial diseases and certain fungal diseases. Inte- never be applied more than two or three times in suc- grated pest management should provide the tools cession. Alternation of these fungicides with older needed to optimize effectiveness of this technology. fungicides having alternative modes of action, will, it Another new strategy for managing bacterial dis- is hoped, prevent or delay for many years development eases involves use of a plant growth regulator, proof resistance. hexadione calcium, which, by altering plant physiol- Biocontrol agents controlling or decreasing plant ogy, makes apples and pears less susceptible to fire diseases have received considerable attention during blight. Prohexadione calcium inhibits biosynthesis of the past several decades (Tedford and Brown 2000). gibberellin, a natural plant hormone essential for cell Strains of Trichoderma species, for instance, have elongation. Plants treated with prohexadione calci- been commercialized as seed treatments preventing um show decreased vegetative shoot growth, and this root diseases and wood decay. Several strains of the decrease evidently makes the growing shoot tips less bacterium Bacillus subtillis have been registered for susceptible to invasion by Erwinia amylovora, the control of both fungal and bacterial diseases on fruit bacterium causing fire blight. To use this product and vegetable crops. Strains of the bacterium effectively, IPM practitioners need to consider both Pseudomonas syringae and a strain of the yeast Can- pest control and horticultural variables because, in dida oleophila have been registered for control of post- certain instances, the growth suppression caused by harvest diseases on apples and pears. With a few prohexadione calcium can limit productivity, where- exceptions, however, performance of biocontrols as failure to apply the product can result in signifi- against plant diseases has been inconsistent, and bio- cant losses to fire blight. controls have not been used widely yet as replace- ments for traditional fungicides. (See previous sec- Trends in Acaricides and Insecticides tion of this Chapter.) Development of bactericides for the control of plant The introduction of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroet- pathogens plateaued after registration of the antibi- hane (DDT) and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in otic streptomycin and oxytetracycline more than 30 the 1940s revolutionized pest control and ushered in yr ago. Bacteriologists expressed increasing concern the modern synthetic pesticide era. The global adop- that antibiotics applied to plants in the field might tion of these chemistries led to induced pest outbreaks select for antibiotic resistance in nontarget bacteria. (secondary pests), resurgence of target pests (loss of The possibility existed that antibiotic resistance natural enemies), resistance evolution, and residue might later be transferred to human pathogens, there- problems giving rise to acute and chronic environmen- by impeding the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy for tal and ecological effects. In 1972, the use of DDT was important human diseases. The dim future for the essentially banned in the United States. Organophos- registration of new antibiotics for plants left selection phate and carbamate insecticides were popularized of disease-resistant varieties as the most effective from the late 1960s through the 1980s. They dominat- strategy for managing bacterial diseases. ed many insect management strategies until recent- Within the past 5 years, strategies have evolved for ly, when implementation of the FQPA threatened using chemical sprays that, instead of attacking bac- their long-term use (See Chapter 14). Photostabili- terial pathogens directly, work indirectly by making zation of the natural insecticidal pyrethrins led to the host plants less susceptible to infection (Sticher, synthetic pyrethroids, which have paved the way for MauchMani, and Metraux, 1997). These products are major inroads into pest management in the last 20 yr. known as systemic acquired resistance (SAR) induc- All these chemistries have evidenced certain of the ers. When applied to plant foliage, they stimulate problems experienced by the chlorinated hydrocar- plant cells to produce biochemical products making bons, with the possible exception of long-term chron- plants more resistant to attack. Usually the resis- ic environmental and ecological effects. tance generated by SAR inducers is ephemeral (3 to The chemistry of insect-juvenile hormone was elu- 7 days in duration) and provides incomplete control cidated in 1967 (Granett and Retnakaran 1977). Ini- of disease on a highly susceptible crop. Furthermore, tially, there was much interest, and many pest man- crop response to SAR inducers has been quite vari- agers thought that these chemistries would provide able and presumably is affected by other crop-stress adequate arthropod control without the major draw- factors, environmental conditions, and pathogen bi- backs of the synthetic organic chemicals. Only six or ologies. Nevertheless, SAR inducers represent an seven of the juvenile hormone mimics, chitin synthe- 58 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies sis inhibitors, or molt inhibitors are registered in the phate, carbamate, and synthetic pyrethroid-resistant United States today, however, and they account for insects. Because pyrroles are uncouplers of oxidative only marginal insecticide sales. Formamidine insec- phosphorylation, they, too, may be good candidates for ticides also have been disappointing in that only two breaking resistance in many pests. These compounds (chlordimeform and amitraz) have been successful have some contact as well as major ingestion toxici- commercially. Both are able to control arthropods by ty. They exhibit a moderate spectrum of activity, as means of a combination of lethal and sublethal effects well as comparatively low nontarget activity. but have been plagued with chronic human-toxicity The spinosyns are derived from Actinomycetes (fil- concerns. Fermentation products such as Bacillus amentous bacteria) (Sparks et al. 1999). They exhib- thuringiensis insecticidal proteins have great prom- it both contact and ingestion toxicity against beetles, ise but have accounted for less than 2% of total pesti- flies, termites, worms, and lice. Like the neonicoti- cide sales in the United States (Nester et al. 2002). nyl chemistries, they bind to arthropod nicotinic ace- They suffer from comparatively low efficacy and slow tylcholine receptors in the nervous system but have action. The development of GMOs through the incor- no known synergism, antagonism, or crossresistance poration of these insect active proteins, by means of with the former chemistries. Additionally, they have molecular biological technology, into plants also has few nontarget effects, are short lived, and exhibit few significant promise but may be stalled as a result of or no mammalian acute or chronic effects. The EPA negative public perceptions (See Chapter 14). also has registered an array of behaviorally active semiochemicals, principally attractants, pheromones, and repellents. These compounds have some prom- Novel Insecticidal Chemicals ise in IPM systems as mating dispruptors, monitor- The culmination of two decades of research and ing tools, and “attract and kill” stratagems. investment by agrochemical companies has netted an The EPA has registered these environmentally array of relatively safe, narrowly targeted, and envi- friendlier and safer compounds in almost a 2:1 ratio ronmentally friendly insecticides (Kennedy and Sut- over other chemistries since 1996. For the most part, ton 2000). Avermectins disrupt both gamma amino these chemistries have been on the EPA’s registration butyric acid (GABA) receptors and chlorine channels fast track as the FQPA has created a near-crisis need in the arthropod nervous system. Some of the most for organophosphate and carbamate alternatives. potent new chemicals are active against a range of These new chemistries also represent the outcome of insects, mites, and helminths and break down rapid- both global regulatory pressure toward safer, more en- ly in the environment. Because they also have few vironmentally friendly pesticides and insecticide in- nontarget effects, these chemicals have been viewed dustry foresight, capital investment, and targeted re- as environmentally friendly by the EPA. Several com- search in the 1980s and 1990s. Since 2000, the panies are developing neonicotinyl chemistries (e.g., division of EPA responsible for fast-tracking the reg- imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, acetamiprid) to have istration of biopesticides has been struggling with de- activity against soft-bodied sucking insects and cer- creased funding, fewer staff, and increased demands tain beetles. These compounds have both contact and to shift focus to transgenic crops that produce pesti- systemic activity but can be long-lived in the environ- cides (plant-incorporated protectants) rather than ment. Development of resistance may be a problem, registering microbial and biochemical pesticides. especially in aphids and Colorado potato beetle (See All these new compounds point to a trend toward following section). Few or no nontarget effects have narrower-spectrum insecticides with more environ- been detected with the use of neonicotinyl chemistries. mentally friendly, safer attributes (Kennedy and Sut- Tebufenozide, a novel insect-growth regulator, may ton 2000). These compounds will be put to various have promise in controlling many lepidopteran larvae. uses in IPM systems and will improve the develop- It is an ecdyzone agonist (mimicking insect horomone, ment and adoption of biological (predator and para- causing premature molting and death), recently reg- site) integration in pest management greatly. The istered by the EPA, on a number of crops. It has few compounds also will accompany and augment the or no nontarget effects and is short lived. Another need for information regarding delivery, monitoring, GABA chlorine channel blocker—phenylpyrazole, or and timing of treatment to ensure effective IPM. Fipronil—has promise in a number of insecticide Additionally, pest management is likely to be more markets. Fipronil has contact, ingestion, and system- expensive with the use of these newer compounds. Not ic activity. It may be the best potential resistance- only are the individual chemistries more expensive breaking compound on the horizon for organophos- than their predecessors, but they also have much Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 59 narrower spectrums of control. More applications mergers in the herbicide chemical industry have be- may be necessary, therefore, to achieve control simi- come common. In this way, the power of technology lar to that achieved with organophosphate, carbam- development is concentrated in fewer and fewer com- ate, and pyrethroid insecticides. panies that must be included in dialogues related to furthering IPM goals and adoption. The FQPA requirements are driving companies to Trends in Herbicides abandon herbicide labels for minor crops and farm- One of the most striking achievements in herbicide ing systems in which their product profits are low. chemistry development since 1980 has been the dis- New mechanisms and incentives are needed to ensure covery and development of herbicides effective at very that minor crop production remains competitive and low use-rates (See Chapter 3). Many older herbicides profitable in the United States. required use rates of 0.5 to 3 lb active ingredient /a.

New herbicides, typically applied at ≥ 1 oz /a., provide Trends in Nematicides equivalent or better weed control. Herbicides in the sulfonylurea and imidazolinone families are examples Although the first fumigation test for nematode of low use-rate products with very low mammalian- control was conducted more than 130 yr ago, the first toxicities. An additional restriction placed on new effective fumigant (dichloropropane-dichloropropene herbicides is the leaching characteristics of the her- mixture [D-D]) was discovered much later—1943— bicide or its major metabolites. Herbicide candidates and was invaluable as a nematode management tool showing a propensity to move through soil to surface and as a means of characterizing crop losses caused water or groundwater are not developed, because of by plant parasitic nematodes. The subsequent devel- environmental concerns. Certain of the newer herbi- opment of additional fumigant and nonfumigant ne- cides, however, persist in the soil at levels undetect- maticides (organophosphates and organocarbamates) able by normal methods. Planting sensitive crop spe- provided a limited but effective array of nematicides, cies in treated soil as much as 2 to 3 yr after which were used widely from the 1950s through the application can result in severe damage. Thus, the 1970s for control of a wide range of crops. Another use of these new chemistries tends to limit rotation fumigant, methyl bromide, has proved an especially options to relatively tolerant crop species. effective biocide and has been used worldwide for con- A novel herbicide strategy used since 1996 has been trol of nematodes, insects, fungi, bacteria, and weeds. the development of crops genetically modified to ex- Because of environmental and health concerns press tolerance to herbicides that ordinarily would such as contamination of ground water, numerous have killed them. Crops with tolerance to glyphosate fumigant nematicides have been removed from the and glufosinate are two examples of new uses for safe market, and others such as 1,3-dichloropropene and herbicides developed through biotechnology (Bridges methyl bromide were under intense review in the 2000) (See Chapter 3). Use of cropping systems based 1990s. In fact, methyl bromide is being phased out on such technology can decrease the amount of her- by 2005 (EPA 2000). Certain other nematicides such bicide used in a field dramatically and can allow farm- as 1,3-dichloropropene and aldicarb are restricted to ers increased flexibility to practice decreased tillage, certain uses. The manufacturer of 1,3-dichloropro- which in turn decreases soil erosion. Still, repeated pene indicates that this product is likely to remain use of glyphosates and other chemistries is likely to cleared for use in the United States. In the Novem- result in the development of resistant weed popula- ber 21, 2001 issue of the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. tions, further compounding problems in adopting IPM 225), the EPA announced the termination of the Te- practices. In fact, increased use of glyphosate because lone Special Review because the Agency believes that of the use of glyphosate-tolerant crops has led to the the benefits of Telone use continue to outweigh its development of glyphosate-resistant weeds (Carpen- risks. Microbial decomposition of organophosphate ter et al. 2002; Lyon et al. 2002). Glyphosate-resis- and organocarbamate nematicides recently has be- tant horseweed (Conyza canidensis L.) occurred in come a serious problem, especially when a given prod- only three years of glyphosate use in a continuous uct is used repeatedly (Jones and Norris 1998). Thus, glyphosate-tolerant soybean system (Van Gessel the long-term utility of a number of the currently 2001). available nematicides is uncertain. Because of the rising costs of developing new her- Considerable research has been directed toward bicides and the significant investments required to de- discovery and development of new types of nemati- velop genetically engineered crops, acquisitions and cides and biocides, including biologically based prod- 60 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies ucts. These efforts involve products formulated from has decreased herbicide use in certain row crops. chitinatious materials, fungi and fungal by-products, Application equipment has become much more so- and plant and plant by-products such as Neem (NRC phisticated, with many new technological changes 1992). Compounds from the Neem tree have poten- such as improved nozzle types (Figure 2.8) and com- tial as nematicides as well as insecticides (NRC 1992). puter systems linked to pumping systems (Kennedy Neem oil and azadirachtin have both been registered and Sutton 2000). Computer systems linked to sat- as nematicides in the United States (EPA and USDA ellites allow aerial applicators the opportunity to ap- 2003). An example of a fungal by-product receiving ply pesticides very accurately by means of global po- extensive evaluation is DiTera, a complex, unpurified sitioning application systems. These systems also material from Myrothecium spp. (Warrior et al. 1999), eliminate the need for human flaggers for aerial ap- but related results to date are rather variable. Most plication. Computer systems linked to spraying sys- current research efforts are focused on the development of alternatives to methyl bromide. Promising replacement compounds include methyl iodide, metam-sodium, and dichloropropene-chloropicrin (Hutchinson et al. 1999; Locascio et al. 1997). For root-knot nematode control on carrots, methyl iodide was as effective as methyl bromide (Hutchinson et al. 1999). Unfortunately, the current costs and uncertain environmental effects of methyl iodide place this compound under question. Locascio et al. (1997) concluded that no single product can provide the broad- spectrum pest control offered by methyl bromide. Physical treatments such as solarization and irradi- ation have promise on dried plant parts during storage for soil pest control and for insect control, respectively. Future nematode management probably will rely less on traditional nematicides unless significant breakthroughs occur. Current trends in nematode control rely on integrated cropping systems encompassing the use of resistant cultivars or crops, rotations including cover crops, soil amendments, and biological controls, especially those favoring soilborne antagonists/parasites (Barker and Koenning 1998). Future nematicide formulations will need to meet efficacy, environmental and health protection, and food safety standards.

Trends in Pesticide Delivery Technology Figure 2.8. Hooded sprayers operated by a field technician di- Pesticide application precision remains one of the rect herbicide just to areas between rows of grain sorghum. Photo by Jack Dykinga, Agricultural Re- most important environmental and ecological factors search Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in all of pest management. Most pesticides applied Beltsville, Maryland. today are either preemergent herbicides for row crops or postemergent herbicides for weed canopies. The tems mean that mixtures can be injected while appli- standard wisdom is to spray large droplets that do not cators are spraying. This process has eliminated the drift. High-ground clearance sprayers work with noz- need to mix large tanks of spray solution before ap- zles designed to produce a flat fan of nonoverlapping plication or to fill tanks with mixed pesticides. These spray. Improved formulations and new active ingre- tanks can result in major spills on the highway and dients require lowered inputs to achieve similar or in costly clean-up procedures. Because the injection improved weed control. Additionally, application of system allows applicators an opportunity to spray and herbicide bands to the row instead of to the entire field to mix simultaneously, no unneeded pesticide mix- Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 61 tures are mixed that cannot be applied because of 3000 adverse wind conditions or a change of plans. Addi- Arthropods 2,848 total cases tionally, with injection systems, the possibility of pes- 2500 Pesticides (arthropod X pesticides) ticide breakdown through hydrolysis is eliminated Cases because pesticide solutions are sprayed shortly after 2000 being mixed. Precision agriculture, as discussed earlier and in 1500 Chapter 3, has great promise in further decreasing the quantity of herbicides as well as other pesticides and fertilizers used in row crop agriculture. With count Cumulative 1000 decreases in inputs, and increases in the “precision” 537 total arthropods of targeting, negative effects on the applicator, non- 500 target organisms, and the environment also should 326 total be decreased. Tree fruit, brambles, vineyards, hops, 0 pesticide compounds certain vegetables, forestry, human habitation sites, 19101920 1930 19401950 19601970 1980 1990 2000 and certain woody ornamental applications are espe- Year cially challenging, and there is an array of alterna- Figure 2.9. Timeline for the development of insect resistance in arthropods. (Source: M. Whalon, Michigan State tive delivery systems available for them. University.) With an IPM system in place, pesticides should be used only on an “as needed” basis. There are two parts here to leaf surfaces, boom delivery systems, horizon- to a spray decision that involves sprayer engineering: tal flow supplemental air movement fans, and spray timing and active ingredient. Appropriate timing droplets with air bubbles inside to increase droplet requires efficient, relatively high-speed equipment to size. cover the necessary crop area within the narrow window of time before economic loss occurs. The characteristics of certain active ingredients also have influenced pesticide delivery apparatus design. For Pesticide Resistance example, plant disease managers have not had the Management postinfection activity needed to eradicate or to arrest development of infectious diseases until very recent- The frequent occurrence of pesticide resistance in ly. Therefore, protectant residues of antimicrobial various pests emphasizes the importance of this phe- pesticides have been necessary in many plant protec- nomenon and the need for deployment of multiple- tion situations. Delivery of these sprays with suffi- tactic IPM programs. More than 533 species of ar- cient coverage for control has required dilute sprays thropods (Figure 2.9), 100 species of plant pathogens, with very high-volumes sometimes exceeding 428 and 200 biotypes of weeds (Figure 2.10) have developed resistance to pesticides. This resistance with- gallons /a. Development of ultra-low-volume (ULV) sprayers and an array of new fungicides and bacteri- in a pest is an inherited genetic change allowing in- cides has diminished the need for high-volume spray- dividuals in a population to survive exposure to ers in many pest management systems. The mode of action and the environmental attenu- ation characteristics of the active ingredient as well 250 as the behavior of the target pest also may dictate the 200 type of equipment, volume of water, and frequency of treatment necessary for control (MSU 2002; NRC 150 2000). Surfactants (spreader stickers) and ultravio- let light protectants have increased the efficacy of a 100 number of active ingredients. Yet the most significant development has been the engineering of spray equip- 50 ment that can deliver pesticides over large areas with Number of Resistant Biotypes 0 good coverage, on an “as needed” basis. Spray drift 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 remains the most intractable problem. Numerous Year mitigation inventions have been deployed, including Figure 2.10. Worldwide development of herbicide-resistant covered and tunnel sprayers, droplets charged to ad- weeds. (Source: I. Heap, ) 62 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies pesticides. The evolution to resistance may require cially before scientists can evaluate fully all the im- increased treatment rates or application frequencies, portant factors potentially contributing to effective or a shift to other pest management strategies. Re- RM. Thus, most RM strategies evolve over time and, sistance development often is very disruptive of IPM almost always, after resistance has developed. RM systems and also may be harmful to ecosystem, envi- strategies for Bt crops, however, were developed in a ronment, and applicators if increased amounts of pes- proactive fashion before their commercialization and ticide inputs become necessary. Many pests have these strategies have been modified over time (EPA developed cross-resistance, whereby resistance to one 2001). No Bt resistance has been detected in the field pesticide confers resistance to other chemistries to since Bt crops were commercialized. which pests never have been exposed. Archetype re- Resistance management strategies frequently sistant species such as the Colorado potato beetle may must be constructed from a combination of general develop resistance mechanisms enabling populations principles, pest biology and ecology, population genet- to escape a broad spectrum of insecticides. ics, resistance management models, laboratory bioas- Resistance management (RM) is a set of strategies says and field monitoring data, informal observations, and tactics within IPM programs that seeks to ame- and anecdotal experiences from IPM practitioners in liorate pest resistance. Today, most IPM programs the field. But there are usually a number of uncer- include RM objectives for arthropod, pathogen, and tainties in the available information that prevent a weed pests. Resistance management may include: (1) definitive, proscriptive RM strategy. Yet even in the decreasing pesticide-related selection pressure on pest absence of sophisticated RM understanding, practi- populations; (2) monitoring for shifts in susceptibili- tioners often can delay resistance development by ty of pest populations; (3) using alternative popula- decreasing the number of unwarranted applications, tion-suppression mechanisms; (4) conserving suscep- rotating pesticides with different modes of action, and tible genes in a pest population through refugia or using pest preventative cropping practices such as enhanced immigration; and (5) developing models to sanitation, rotation, and early or late planting to avoid assist in designing resistance management programs peak activity. (Denholm and Rowland 1992). Factors contributing to the rapid development of Tactics for pesticide RM within IPM systems often resistance include repeated application of the same include applying nonpersistent pesticides, rotating or or related pesticides, multiple pest generations /yr, sequencing pesticides with different modes of action, large pest populations present at treatment time, and targeting a certain life-stage, and using different pes- lack of pest immigrants to dilute the genetics of pesticides or IPM strategies for successive generations. ticide-resistant individuals developing within treat- Pest managers often alter the dosage applied to ed areas (Roush 1989). In designing RM strategies achieve high, moderate, or low dosage exposures. In that minimize selection pressure for resistance while other instances, a geographic mosaic may be achieved maximizing the long-term benefits of available pesti- as a result of adjusting timing, application rates, and cides and GMOs for both farmer and pesticide/GMS products used in fields or regions. producers, effective IPM programming will take into account all these factors. Resistance Management in an Integrated The EPA and the Pest Management Regulatory Pest Management Context Agency of Canada (PMRA) have developed and published guidelines for voluntary pesticide resistance Resistance management adds another variable to management labeling based on rotation of mode of IPM programs, so RM strategies must be customized action for implementation in North America under the to meet specific pest management situations. As a auspices of the North American Free Trade Agree- result, development and implementation of RM strat- ment (NAFTA) (EPA and USDA 2001; NAFTA 2000). egies are continually evolving information intensive These voluntary labeling guidelines provide accept- processes. Resistance management strategies and able schemes of classification of pesticides according tactics may be implemented by pest managers or pro- to their mode/target site of action and RM recommen- ducers with minimal investment in additional person- dations in the “Use Directions” section of the pesti- nel, research, or time. But effective RM strategies cide label. Implementation of these voluntary guide- usually require detailed knowledge of RM genetics, lines will help improve the likelihood of adoption by biologies of both pest and crop, and interactions users of good RM as part of an IPM program and, among pest, crop, and environment. Pesticides and potentially, reduce the likelihood of pest/pesticide re- GMOs often become available and are used commer- sistance (Matten, S. R. 2003. Personal communication). Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 63

An illustration of the impact of differences in pest field failures of the fungicide. Curative treatments biology on resistance development is that of benzim- should be avoided because such treatments are ap- idazole resistance in several apple pathogens. For plied only after a pathogen already is established in example, the apple scab fungus developed resistance a crop, and often the fungal population is in the loga- to benzimidazole fungicides within 3 yr after the fun- rithmic phase of epidemic development. Selection gicides were introduced. In contrast, the benzimida- pressure therefore is increased. Effectiveness of treat- zoles still provide excellent control of flyspeck on ap- ments, even in the absence of fungicide resistance, is ples after more than 25 yr. The difference is that improved when fungicides are timed to prevent ini- Venturia inaequalis, the fungus causing apple scab, tial infections. has more generations per year and often has higher Two strategies have evolved for avoiding repeated populations within the orchard than Zygophiala ja- exposure of fungal populations to the same fungicide. maicensis, the fungus causing flyspeck, does. Fur- According to one strategy, two or more fungicides with thermore, V. inaequalis survives from year to year different modes of action are applied in a mixture. within the orchard whereas most of the inoculum for This strategy was used successfully to delay develop- Z. jamaicensis originates from wild hosts in the or- ment of resistance to benzimidazole and de-methyla- chard perimeter, where it is less subject to selection tion inhibitor (DMI) fungicides. According to the sec- for resistance. ond strategy, applications of different fungicides are alternated. Both strategies are based on the idea that fungal populations will be slow to develop resistance Resistance Management Tactics and Tools to multiple fungicides applied at the same time or in close succession. Nevertheless, development of fun- Bacteria gicidal as well as bactericidal resistance has resulted The few products available to control bacteria lim- in significant control problems on numerous crops. it RM strategies for bactericides. Tactics involve limiting the number of applications/season, optimizing Genetically Modified Organisms the timing of applications for maximum benefit, and using host resistance or cultural management to min- Genetically modified organisms contain genes from imize the size of populations that must be controlled the same or from unrelated species introduced with bactericides. Streptomycin-resistant strains of through biotechnology or genetic engineering. These the fire blight pathogen, Erwinia amylovora, have organisms sometimes are called transgenic, a descrip- been detected in most regions where streptomycin has tor reflecting their heterogenetic origin. Arrays of been applied more than 2 to 3 times /season (Burr et GMOs have been or may be released into agriculture, al. 1993). Several disease models constructed over the forestry, and other settings. Those that suppress past 15 yr allow apple and pear growers to optimize pests may select for resistant pest populations in the timing of their streptomycin sprays and thereby to same way that chemical pesticides have selected for increase the probability of satisfactory control of fire them. In 2001, more than 75 million a. of transgenic blight. At the same time, growers are advised to plant crops were planted, most of which were herbicide-tol- less susceptible varieties and to use various cultural erant crops such as corn, cotton, and soybean. Con- practices to decrease host susceptibility and inoculum cerns about development of resistance to transgenic levels in their orchards. crops have focused on the deployment of cotton, corn, and potatoes containing Bt toxin (Gould 1998; Mc- Gaughey and Whalon 1992). Fungi Insect-active Bt-toxin genes are derived from the Fungal-resistance management strategies for fun- soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Formulated gicides include minimizing repeated exposure of fun- into many different sprayable insecticides, the Bt mi- gal populations to the same fungicide (or fungicide croorganism represents one of the principal pesticides class), using fungicides in prophylactic rather than in in organic and alternative crop production. Many con- curative treatment timings, and using fungicides at sumers believe that Bt transgenic crops are a threat rates sufficient to control the most resistant individ- to the long-term viability of Bt because transgenic uals in the wild-type population (Koeller 1996). The plants may select for insect resistance to Bt more latter strategy is important because marginally resis- quickly than would occur if the Bt organism were used tant pathogens surviving low-rate applications can only in spray applications. dominate fungal populations gradually and cause Since the inception of Bt crops, the EPA has re- 64 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies quired or recommended insect resistance manage- modern pest management systems (Georghiou 1986). ment (IRM) strategies for these systems. The EPA Today, few new insecticide or miticide products are has determined the protection of the susceptibility of introduced into the marketplace without label recom- Bt is in the “public good” (EPA 1998, 2001; EPA and mendations for RM. USDA 1999). The current set of IRM requirements Rate of resistance development and degree of RM is found in the EPA’s 2001 reassessment of the risks difficulty are related to various features (Figure 2.9). and benefits of Bt crops document (EPA 2001). These Kennedy and Whalon (1995) have outlined many of plans require the planting of non-Bt refugia that will these in terms of incentives and barriers to imple- produce sufficient numbers of susceptible individuals menting RM programs in the field. Certain biologi- to mate with any putative resistant individuals that cal and ecological factors are beyond human control emerge in the Bt fields, to dilute the effect of resis- yet may have significant interactions with the costs tance should it arise in transgenic Bt crops. There are and the operational aspects of RM programs or the several important assumptions with the high dose/ environment. structure refugia strategy: (1) resistance to Bt will be conferred by a single recessive gene with two alle- Nematodes les resulting in three insect genotypes, (2) low initial frequency of resistance alleles (i.e., resistance will be Although populations of many nematode species rare), and (3) random mating between susceptible and have been reported as resistant to all nonfumigant ne- resistant adults. These plans include the following maticides (Viglierchio 1991), this is not a widespread elements: problem. The very limited mobility of these soilborne pathogens restricts the dispersal of any population 1. a refugia /high dose strategy, variants with nematicide resistance. A more frequent 2. planting of non-Bt refugia greater than a certain problem with fumigant and nonfumigant nematicides minimum size to be determined by the effective is accelerated microbial decomposition of the chemi- dose and population genetics, cal in soils (Johnson 1998). 3. specified parameters of proximity of the refuge to the transgenic crop determined by the population biology and ecology (in particular, movement, Weeds mating, and ovipositional behavior), More than 200 herbicide-resistant biotypes of 4. an annual resistance monitoring program, weeds have appeared worldwide during the last four decades (Figure 2.10). Many herbicide-resistant 5. a plan for education and communication between weeds can be controlled today by means of transgen- user and seller, ic systems in major crops such as corn, cotton, and 6. a user compliance assurance program, soybean (Sherrick and Head 2000). For example,

7. a remedial action plan to mitigate /eradicate re- weed problems such as imidazolinone-resistant sistance if it arises, Xanthium strumatium and triazine-resistant Chenop- 8. additional research, odium album and Amaranthus species can be managed with HT crop varieties. 9. annual reports to the EPA, and Increased selection pressure for resistant weeds 10. additional modification of the RM plan, if neces- when a given herbicide is applied for multiple years sary. is an important consideration in the deployment of Although field resistance to Bt transgenic plants has genetically engineered HT crops (Hess and Duke not been a problem yet, insects certainly can develop 2000). Beginning in 1997, glyphosate resistance has resistance to Bt and to Bt crops (Tabashnik 1994). evolved in five weed species in seven locations world- These RM plans therefore are warranted to protect a wide: (1) goosegrass (Eleusine indica), Malaysia; (2) very valuable source of pest population suppression. horseweed (Conyza canadensis), United States); (3) Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiforum), Chile; (4) rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), Australia, United Insects and Mites States, and South Africa; and (5) annual ryegrass Deployment of synthetic organic insecticides and (Lolium multiflorum) (Carpenter et al. 2002). Al- miticides in the 1940s was accompanied by develop- though the development of resistant weeds depends ment of broadscale resistance. In the 1970s, resis- on the frequency of resistance in the general popula- tance was recognized as a major global challenge of tion, the potential for selection of resistant weeds is Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 65 limited by the practice of mixing or rotating herbicides Certification and Regulation with different modes of action over time (Hess and Duke 2000). A key concern with HT crops is potential gene flow from resistant crop to susceptible weeds. IPM Certification Where crops and weeds are interfertile, risks for out- crossing usually are minimized by targeting the HT A certified IPM product has been awarded a label trait to the chloroplast (thus, HT becomes a mater- providing consumers information about the process nally inherited trait and is not moved with pollen). by which that product was produced (Consumers Another approach for preventing movement of HT to Union 2002; IPMI 2002b). A certification in the form related weeds is limiting the use of the trait to self- of a label is a process label, not an outcome label. The pollinating crops (Hess and Duke 2000). label “IPM” on a product tells the consumer that it was In conclusion, any population suppression strate- grown using IPM practices, whereas the label “organ- gy, tactic, or tool may select for resistant individuals ic” is used for products grown using few or no synthetic in the population. This is true even for relatively be- chemical pesticides. Both labels imply fewer and less nign insecticides such as Bt and other relatively new, damaging environmental effects than are associated environmentally friendly, naturally derived, or even with conventionally produced goods. Although this organic pesticides. Most newer pesticides control a may be true, many consumers generally perceive cer- limited number of pests by carefully targeting inhi- tification such as organic and IPM to indicate that the bition of specific biochemical pathways in the pest. product is safer to consume. By definition, this is not But these target site inhibitors often are more suscep- necessarily true with process labels. Goods produced tible to resistance problems than older, broader spec- with IPM tactics and organically grown foods can be trum pesticides are. just as harmful or harmless as conventional products Integrated pest management should continue as because in IPM systems, chemical pesticides still are one of the principal strategies for preventing resis- used in the production process and certain organical- tance development because IPM programs use diverse ly approved pesticides include potentially hazardous tactics to suppress populations. Pests have difficulty substances. Labels can be powerful marketing tools, mounting an evolutionary response to multiple IPM however, and certain labels provide IPM growers with tactics used concurrently or in close succession. De- a premium over conventional growers. A few labels velopment of multiple resistance and cross-resistance attempt to strengthen the local agricultural economy in pest populations is a threat for nearly all pesticides. by focusing on local producers whereas other labels Thus, RM will continue to influence the way in which may convey the message that certain presumably pesticides are used. Currently, there is much evidence more environmentally friendly production processes for the success of IRM programs for Bt crops. The were used. Some examples follow. success of most RM programs for conventional pesticides, however, is anecdotal, but they will expand in Rainforest Alliance’s ECO-O.K. Label importance as society and regulators recognize the threat posed by pest resistance to pesticides. Con- The ECO-O.K. agricultural certification program cerns about RM ultimately may generate a require- is managed jointly by the Rainforest Alliance and a ment that RM plans be submitted with other materi- network of Latin American partner organizations, als required for pesticide registration in a process under the umbrella of the Conservation Agricultural similar to that already required by the EPA for regis- Network (Rainforest Alliance 2002). Each partner is tration of Bt-containing GMOs. As noted earlier in a local conservation group committed to community- this section, the United States (PR Notice 2001-5) and based conservation initiatives and research. The Canada (DIR 99-06) have developed voluntary resis- group has two primary labeling initiatives and is in tance management labeling guidelines based on ro- the process of developing several more. tation of mode of action. As implementation of this voluntary initiative occurs, more and more pesticide The Better Banana Project labels will include statements focusing on resistance management. Several new labels in both countries, The banana industry is an essential part of many especially for those undergoing a joint review process, Latin American and Caribbean economies. The Con- are beginning to include statements focusing on servation Agricultural Network initiated the Better RM, such as seasonal and temporal application Banana Project in 1991 in an effort to diminish the sequences. negative environmental impacts of banana cultivation 66 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies and to improve working conditions through certifica- given the conditions present at any time on their tion of well-managed banana farms. Farms that com- farms. The purposes of the Farm Plan are as follows: ply with a comprehensive set of environmental and • to determine if a grower is using an IPM approach social guidelines are awarded the Better Banana seal to his/her farm management. of approval. Farms enrolled in the Better Banana Project are pioneers in the industry. These farms do • to serve as a basis for information exchange not contribute to deforestation, protect the safety of among members of the CVN grower community workers, have minimized the use of agrochemicals, and between the CVN growers and the research and are working to decrease soil erosion. community, and Since 1991, the Conservation Agricultural Network • to function as a tool in problem identification and has succeeded in significantly altering the nature of to provide an innovative approach to problem banana farming in Costa Rica and is expanding its solving. reach to other crops and countries rapidly. Enroll- This model ecolabeling program brings together ment in the program has decreased pollution of sur- Northeast farmers and consumers as partners in de- face and groundwater significantly. More than 20% fining ecologically responsible agriculture through the of banana production in Costa Rica and 50% in Pan- accreditation of regional farmers using biointensive ama have been awarded certification. Farm evalua- IPM production methods. Growers submit an annu- tions are under way in Ecuador and Colombia, and al farm plan and have an annual on-site inspection. banana growers in Honduras and Guatemala are The primary goal is to build public awareness of and making necessary improvements to achieve certifica- demand for local, ecologically grown apples through tion in the near future. consumer-oriented media and market-based educational strategies. This ecolabel is a point-of-purchase The Eco-O.K. Conservation Coffee Project education tool providing information to consumers about the agricultural and environmental improve- Coffee is the most important export crop in the ments being implemented by growers in the region. northern region of South America, both in terms of In 2001, Core Values became independent of Moth- area cultivated and economic value. Coffee is of spe- ers and Others and is now led by an executive com- cial interest to conservationists because it covers mittee, with certification services provided by the IPM much of the region’s richest ecological zones. The Institute (IPMI 2002b). Conservation Agriculture Network (CAN) developed the Conservation Coffee Project to provide market incentives for the conservation of forested coffee Partners with Nature farms. Farms meeting CAN’S comprehensive agricul- Partners with Nature was launched in 1993 and tural standards receive the ECO-O.K. seal of approv- is an IPM certification program recognizing Massa- al to distinguish their products in the marketplace. chusetts growers who have taken special steps in This program provides farmers with incentives to practicing IPM (University of Massachusetts 2000). maintain their shade-grown coffee farms, thus pre- It is a collaborative initiative between the Massachu- serving an important habitat and encouraging coffee setts Department of Food and Agriculture, the Uni- farming that protects worker health and safety. (Ad- versity of Massachusetts Extension Program, and the ditional certification guidelines from the Rainforest USDA Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA). In Alliance exist for orange juice and cocoa.) 1997, Partners with Nature certified sweet corn, strawberries, potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, winter squash, and cole crops. In 1996, 50 farms across Mothers and Others for a Livable Planet Core Massachusetts were IPM certified through the Part- Value ners with Nature program (University of Massachu- The process of creating a meaningful certification setts 2000). system for CORE Values Northeast (CVN) began in 1995 (IPMI 2002a). The CORE Values Northeast Stemilt Responsible Choice Grower Committee decided that the central element of the certification program should be a farm plan. In Europe, greater than 40% of apples and pears This plan would be a dynamic document intended to are produced under formal Integrated Fruit Produc- reflect growers’ “effective” knowledge, that is, their tion (IFP) systems (Stemilt Management 2002). Pro- abilities to make environmentally sound decisions duction standards are very detailed, consumers rec- Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 67 ognize the IFP logos, IFP fruit is placed preferential- from less than 11% to more than 19% in its first sea- ly by supermarkets, and growers may get a premium son, offering sweet corn identified as “IPM-produced” price. In the northwestern United States, the Respon- in stores, point-of-purchase brochures and displays, sible Choice program of Stemilt Growers, Inc. and the radio ads, and newspaper inserts (Green, T. 1999. Hood River Grower/Shipper IFP Program are modeled Personal communication). after the European approach. Using IFP, Stemilt In conclusion, it has been argued that labeling that addresses all aspects of growing, harvesting, storing, has involved the industry has contributed not only to and packaging fruit. With each stage of production, consumer choices but, through associated environ- Stemilt has developed a program based on “Respon- mentally friendly products, has served as a mecha- sible Choice” and provides only fruit grown and pack- nism strengthening a particular market. (See Ben- aged in an environmentally sound program. brook [2002] for an overview of activities creating IPM awareness among consumers, and VanKirk and Gar- ling [2002] on the benefits and challenges to land- The Food Alliance grant involvement in IPM labeling.) Critics of such The Food Alliance is a coalition of farmers, consum- practices have pointed out that companies make their ers, scientists, grocers, processors, distributors, farm own choices regarding what to include on labels with- worker representatives, and environmentalists work- out outside oversight (exceptions in the United States ing together to ensure that future generations have include the tobacco and alcohol industries), and that “Good Food for a Healthy Future” (Food Alliance often “green” (or IPM) claims are exaggerated or even 2002). The Food Alliance is an independent third unfounded (Bruno 1992).1 Ecolabeling through third- party endorsing farms that meet strict requirements. party oversight, on the other hand, generally is grant- A primary goal is to improve communication and un- ed by an organization to applicants based on produc- derstanding between consumers and producers, espe- ers’ voluntary compliance with standards established cially by means of market-based incentives. by groups outside the production process, such as environmental and consumer groups. This type of labeling, however, can give consumers the perception The Cornell / Wegmans IPM Label that something is “wrong” or at least “not right” with Wegmans Food Markets first approached Cornell nonlabeled products. University in 1994, seeking the means to offer its consumers IPM-grown sweet corn (Haining Cowles 1999). Customers were positive about the opportunity to Ecolabels in an International Context choose IPM-grown, fresh-market sweet corn, and The IPM label is an ecolabel much like the organic Wegmans decided to expand to IPM- grown canned label or any other process label. Ecolabels recently and frozen vegetables in 1996. Comstock Michigan have become a topic of discussion among the interna- Fruit, Wegmans’ supplier of processed fruits and veg- tional organizations concerned with trade (Barham etables, found that ten of its growers had already 1997). At the international level, ecolabels are asso- adopted most of the available IPM methods; thus, a ciated most often with life-cycle assessments (LCA) partnership was founded. The Wegmans model in- and processing and production methods (PPM), which corporates a set of required IPM practices, developed are evaluation criteria by which the label is granted by land-grant IPM experts with input from growers, and are generally the basis for government regula- private IPM experts, and others. Retailers identify tions. Such regulation for environmental, safety, and eligible products with logos or brands licensed from health purposes is permitted under multilateral trade the university and motivate consumer preference for

IPM-identified products using educational /promotion- 1 al materials provided by or developed with the land- For example, in 1996, 15 nongovernmental organizations grant university. Grower compliance is verified by formed the “Campaign to Defend EcoLabeling,” which was led by Green Seal and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP third-party certifiers contracting with producers or 1999), among others, in response to efforts by industry to put a stop retailers. Wegmans has an incentive for participat- to third-party labeling by working through the U.S. Trade Repre- ing and investing in IPM education: its private-label sentative's Office. The campaign was led by the Grocery Manu- products, labeled with the IPM logo, are value-added facturers Association and Procter and Gamble Co., which sought products that compete with enhanced effectiveness to affirm industry control over labeling and asserted that third- party labeling constituted a violation of the principles of free trade. against national brands (Haining Cowles 1999). Although this issue has been settled, the two parties continue to Wegmans increased consumer recognition of IPM organize (Barham 1997). 68 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies rules and typically does not cause problems for inter- goal, announced jointly by the USDA, the EPA, and national trade when labels are specified for domestic the FDA in September 1993, represents a commit- use only. Thus, the last negotiations of the General ment by these government agencies to work with the Agreements on Tariffs and Trade in the Uruguay states as well as with private sector partners to de- Round acknowledged the right of individual countries velop, and to help farmers implement, ecologically to set their standards within their own boundaries. based pest management approaches that rely “less on What IPM is in the United States does not necessar- chemical pest controls, are more sustainable, are ily constitute IPM in other countries. Aside from the equally efficient economically and still provide Amer- definitional difference, domestic PPM standards icans with an economical, safe and plentiful food sup- might cause problems for other countries should they ply.” The National Plan had four primary objectives: be perceived as imposing trade restrictions on imports (1) to coordinate with land-grant universities and with from other countries (e.g., the dolphin-tuna controver- public and private organizations at the state, region- sy). Countries with notably greater economic power al, and national levels to achieve the 75% IPM imple- could set the standards at home that less developed mentation goal; (2) to develop a process for identify- countries cannot meet, in effect creating nontariff ing grower needs and providing them support; (3) to barriers. How such schemes will affect international develop methods and conduct programs to measure trade is being considered by several international progress toward the 75% goal accurately and to as- governmental agencies. sess the economic, environmental, public health, and Because individual PPM regulations have caused societal effects of IPM implementation; and (4) to problems in international trade, specifically in terms implement a communication and information ex- of competitiveness, it has been suggested that the change program that involves IPM stakeholders and LCA (an alternative to ecolabeling, dealing with the enhances their understanding of the objectives of IPM entire life span of a product and the effects on the and its related activities, as well as the progress, ef- environment) should perhaps be broken into two fects, and benefits of IPM (See Chapter 1). phases, from the single “cradle to grave” approach to There are actual performance goals for measuring the two-pronged “cradle to export border”and “import the success of IPM in general and for producers to use, border to grave” approach. This approach would al- as well as for policymakers to consult when determin- low both importing and exporting countries to set ing whether the goals of the legislation have been their own standards (Barham 1997).2 accomplished (See Chapter 14). Additionally, in order to qualify as an IPM producer, the grower must be using three or more of the performance goals out- IPM Regulation lined in what is called PAMS: Prevention, Avoidance, Because IPM has always been a voluntary endeav- Monitoring and Suppression. Prevention, the prac- or, IPM regulation is a relatively new concept. In light tice of keeping pests from attacking a crop, includes of the federal government’s increasing concern regard- tactics such as using pest-free seeds, irrigation sched- ing pesticide residues on food and increased health uling to avoid disease development, and field sanita- awareness, and in light of the Food Quality Protec- tion procedures. Avoidance generally is practiced tion Act of 1996, IPM regulation has become a reali- when pests are already present but potential damage ty (See Chapter 14). Additionally, concerns about the to the crop can be avoided through cultural practices environment encouraged the Clinton Administration such as rotating crops, choosing cultivars with genetic to create a 75% goal for IPM participation. Thus, IPM resistance to the pest, and using trap crops and pher- regulation encompasses two important pieces of omone traps. Monitoring and appropriate identifica- legislation. tion of pests should be practices used as a basis for The National Plan for the Development and Imple- suppression activities. Examples of monitoring in- mentation of Integrated Pest Management Systems, clude scouting, soil testing, and weather monitoring. developed by the USDA, land-grant universities, and Suppression becomes necessary when pests have other organizations, encompasses the goal to imple- reached levels at which prevention and avoidance ment IPM methods on 75% of the nation’s cropland tactics have not been successful and economic loss by the year 2000 (GAO 2001; See Chapter 14). This needs to be avoided. Suppression practices are com- prised of cultural, physical, and biological methods. Suppression tactics include cover crops and mulches, 2As a methodology for granting labels, the LCA faces many ob- stacles in implementation, including high cost or unavailability of alternative tillage methods, cultivation and mowing data and differing national methods of reporting data. for weed control, pheromone traps, and temperature Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 69 management. Biological control tactics such as mat- agement options, encompassing education and re- ing disruption for insects should be considered before search in cooperation with the USDA Office of chemical alternatives are used. But where these op- Pest Management Policy, land-grant universities, tions fail, carefully selected and targeted pesticide producers, and the EPA. The provision of science- spraying may be applied only when necessary (See based data relating to the FQPA, pest manage- Chapter 1). ment issues, and minor crop needs are the cur- The other significant legislation affecting IPM is rent focus of this program. The PIAP funds now the Food Quality Protection Act. The USDA–Coop- are allocated to the four Regional IPM Centers erative State Research, Education, and Extension (see Zurek 2002a, for information on these Cen- Service (CSREES) Integrated Pest Management Pro- ters: Western Region, North Central Region, South- grams were established as part of the FQPA imple- ern Region, Northeastern Region). Fulfilling the mentation (See Chapter 14). This legislation consists requirements of the FQPA is given a high priority. of six components, most of which extend responsibility for implementation and success to state agencies. The following provides a short overview of the The Pest Management Information Decision programs. Support System 1. Pest Management Alternatives Program. This program was developed to provide the foun- The Pest Management Alternatives Program dation for integrated databases needed for the deci- (PMAP) was established in 1996 to develop re- sion making process for questions regarding policy, placement tactics and technologies for pesticides research priorities and educational inquiries. The under consideration for delisting by the EPA, for early prototype version could access the EPA Regis- which effective alternatives are unavailable. This tration Data Base, the IR–4 Minor and Specialty Crop program is funded for short-term projects, with Data Base, the CRIS Database, and the National the objective of adaptive research and implemen- Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) tation of IPM practices. The focus is the replace- database on pesticide use. This web-based program ment, on a single crop basis, not on a cropping now is managed by the National Science Foundation system basis, of individual tactics in a pest man- (NSF) Pest Management Center (NSF 2002) and is agement program. interfaced with the four Regional Pest Management Centers (Zurek 2002a). The PMIDSS serves as the 2. Extension IPM Implementation Program. decision support system for the four regional pest The Extension IPM Implementation Program management centers (and others) as they work to (EIPM) supports applied research to disperse in- improved IPM Strategies and systems and to meet the formation about new technologies from research- FQPA requirements (Stinner 2002; Zurek 2002b). ers to producers as quickly as possible. A base program in each state assists in accelerating the transfer of proven IPM technologies for imple- Interregional Research Project Number 4 mentation as growers look for new approaches to (IRÐ4) managing pests, especially after key pesticides The IR–4 project provides cooperation, grants, and have been banned due to the FQPA or are lost due scientific direction for field and laboratory research to resistance. with the objective of developing data primarily on 3. Regional Integrated Pest Management minor crops supporting registration packages to be Grants Program. The Regional Integrated Pest submitted to the EPA. Management Grants Program (RIPM) supports research of new pest management methods and the validation of these methods in the field, as well Effects of Invasive Pests as the delivery of information to growers and other pest managers through education and training Invasive pests are moving into all habitats—from programs. Strong partnerships are key to the suc- bodies of water, to natural areas, forests, rangelands, cess of this program. pastures, and croplands (see Chapters 4 to 7). In the 4. National Agricultural Pesticide Impact As- United States more than 2,000 nonnative plant spe- sessment Program (NAPIAP or PIAP). This cies and a like number of nonnative insects and arach- program initially supported the assessment of nids have been introduced from many countries pesticides and the effect of regulation of pest man- (CNIE 1999a). These introductions of exotic plant 70 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

pests, in addition to disrupting ongoing pest manage- pest species have been estimated at $123 billion /yr ment programs, have resulted in devastating losses (CNIE 1999a). These heavy losses are due, in part, in crop productivity and altered natural landscape to the fact that natural antagonists and parasites of inhabitants. Invaders include weeds, a wide range introduced crop pests often do not accompany pests of insects, viruses, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, rep- to their new locations. This situation results in very tiles, and mammals. For example, more than half of rapid build-up and spread of newly introduced pests. economically important arthropod pests in the Unit- Introduced pests are not limited to those organisms ed States have been introduced from other countries. affecting various crop species. For example, the fire A recent report indicates that an estimated 30,000 ants (Solenopsis invicta) now have become permanent species of exotic organisms now exist in the United residents of a wide range of states and counties in the States (CNIE 1999a). Many fungi, bacteria, viruses, southeastern United States. Estimated damage by and nematodes have been introduced, but their ori- the rapidly spreading fire ants to U.S. livestock, wild- gins often are unknown. life, and public health amounts to approximately $2 Annual costs due to and damages from nonnative billion/yr (CNIE 1999b) (See Textbox 2.3).

Textbox 2.3. Fire ants and IPM (Courtesy of Ann Sorensen and Esther Day)

The imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta Buren and States (Weaver-Missick and Lee 1999), and it is estimated Solenopsis richteri Forel) were accidentally introduced that their population densities are about five times those from South America into the United States in the 1930s. in their native South America habitat (Brenner 1999). Since then, they have rapidly spread across the South and However, in certain situations, they may actually contribute the West and established themselves in 14 states: Alabama, to IPM programs. Fire ants feed primarily on other insects Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and related arthropods, which reduces the need for Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, insecticides in commercial agriculture. For example, in Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas (Brenner cotton fields fire ants help control boll weevils, fleahoppers, 1999; Schmidt 1995; Weaver-Missick and Lee 1999). Fire cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, and tobacco budworms ants have a great impact, especially on ornamental plants, (Drees and Vinson 1998). In current IPM programs, control sod, and landscaping industries because of problems is achieved primarily through chemicals applied directy associated with shipping infested plants into uninfested into the mound (drenches or insecticidal baits mixed with areas of the country. However, impacts on wildlife such ant attractants). Nevertheless, the principle of establishing as the northern Bobwhite quail in Texas (Allen, Lutz, and thresholds, or leaving some mounds to keep more ants Demarais, 1995), other native ant species (Porter and from invading, prevails. In this way, IPM programs to Savignano 1990), and endangered species such as gopher control fire ants have raised public awareness of IPM. tortoises and sea turtles (Weaver-Missick and Lee 1999) Biological approaches to control the red fire ant are can also be significant. In addition, they can harm or even now being tested. In the past 2 years, USDA-ARS kill newborn calves and other vulnerable farm animals. researchers have developed new tactics to combat the ants: Fire ants repeatedly sting potential prey, delivering a potent a slow-acting disease and a decapitating fly. Thelohania toxin that burns and leaves an annoying pustule on the solenopsae, a microorganism from South America, infects skin. Although fire ants suffer from a limited gene pool, the ants and chronically weakens them. The pathogen the absence of predators, their preference for disturbed ultimately infects all workers, eventually killing the colony. areas, and their defensive and reproductive capabilities The other line of defense is the phorid fly (Pseudacteon seem to have compensated for loss of genetic diversity tricuspus). These flies hover over the mound, then zoom (Schmidt 1995). in to puncture the ant's outer cuticle to deposit an egg Fire ants have been a challenge to control through IPM, underneath. The egg quickly hatches into a larva, which partly because they are so prolific and well-adapted and then moves into the ant's head. Once the larva is mature, partly because they can sometimes be beneficial. Mirex it releases an enzyme causing the head to fall off. Because initially was effective in controlling imported fire ants but the fly can lay more than 100 eggs, it can make multiple also killed native ants; the material was banned in the early attacks (Brenner 1999; Weaver-Missick and Lee 1999; 1980s. They are highly visible in the South due to the Williams 1997). If these biological agents can be added number of mounds in yards and other public areas as well to the existing IPM Tool Box, control efforts for this as invasions of hospitals, schools, and electrical boxes. invasive pest will be enhanced. This ant has no natural predators in the United Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 71

Although damaging exotic pests occur throughout blue mold fungus (Peronspora tabacini), coffee rust the United States, certain areas are more suscepti- caused by Hemileia vastatrix, and many others (Main ble to invasion than others (CNIE 1999a). Specific et al. 2001). factors favoring invasion and establishment of invasive pests include a mild climate, geographic isolation, high exposure or invasive rate, and natural-landscape Examples of Current Invasive Plant Pest disturbance. Thus, islands and long-isolated areas Problems such as Hawaii and much of Florida have huge num- As suggested in a great number of publications and bers of introduced species. Weeds, especially, have related web sites, invasive plant pests or weeds pose evolved to exploit these niches, often hitchhiking as major threats to most U.S. agroecosystems and nat- contaminants in soil or plant materials and becom- ural habitats (CAST 2000, 2002). The web site “Weeds ing established in freshly disturbed areas (CNIE gone wild: Alien plant invaders of natural areas” 1999a). (Kwong 2000) provides a comprehensive listing of invasive species of natural areas in the United States. More than 500 species now are included in that list. Means of Spread of Invasive Plant Pests The site also provides the names of management ex- The movement of most pests is passive, but they perts and other individuals and organizations that often can be distributed over hundreds or thousands can provide assistance in the United States and world- of miles and become established in large numbers in wide. The federal weeds database focuses on weeds brief periods. Introductions of nonnative pest species placed under the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975. may be intentional or unintentional (CNIE 1999a). Approximately 88 weed species have been added to Kudzu, for instance, was brought to the United States this list since 1976. The magnitude of the threat of to control soil erosion; other weeds were brought orig- invasive weeds from various habitats is reflected in inally as ornamentals. In contrast, the gypsy moth Chapters 4 (Forest IPM), 5, 6, and 7 in this report. was released accidentally in Massachusetts in the Invasive weed pests are a serious problem in the 1860s (Zimmerman 2000). Introduced crop and or- United States, especially in western rangeland (CNIE namental plants and seeds may contain viruses, bac- 1999b), where leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) often teria, mycoplasmas, weed seeds, insects, and /or nem- crowds out other vegetation in open areas of pasture atodes. Plant products such as animal feed or wood or rangeland. When leafy spurge population levels products also may serve as vehicles for dispersing reach 10 to 20%, cattle refuse to graze, resulting in invasive pests. major economic losses in the range of hundreds of Viruses and mycoplasmas often are distributed millions of dollars. Introduced invasive plant species over wide ranges by their insect vectors, in addition have been estimated to comprise as much as 47% of to being dispersed in infected plants and plant parts. the total flora in most U.S. states, and certain publi- This process may cause local epidemics as well as the cations indicate that 4,000 species of exotic plants now long-distance movement of important plant patho- occur in this country (Kwong 2000). Estimated loss- gens. Long-distance dispersal and introduction of par- es and costs associated with nonnative plants were asites by insects may involve movement of the latter as great as $20 billion /yr during the 1990s, a 300% by wind currents. Certain plant viruses also may be increase over the previous four decades. dispersed by windborne, virus-infected weed seeds The witchweed parasite (Striga asiatica) of corn, such as those of dandelion. sorghum, sugarcane, and other members of the grass Wind currents also effect extensive movement and family is an example of a major success story in the facilitate establishment of numerous fungal patho- management of introduced weeds in the United gens, especially foliar pathogens, within regions as States. This parasitic weed first was identified on well as across countries. Somewhat surprisingly, air North Carolina corn plants by plant pathology grad- currents can move soilborne bacterial pathogens of uate student Akhtar Husain, a Ph.D. candidate at potato such as the Erwinia species over hundreds of North Carolina State University in the mid-1950s. miles (Franc, Harrison, and Powelson 1985). A range One witchweed plant may produce 500,000 seeds, of disease management models factor in the role of the which can remain viable in soil for as long as 15 yr wind and dispersal in short- to long-distance move- (USDA–APHIS 1998). This weed was clearly a threat ment of pathogen spores. Invasive pathogens, facili- to the U.S. corn industry. Through an intensive erad- tated by wind movement, include the potato late ication program initiated by APHIS in 1974, infested blight organism Phytophthora infestans, the tobacco acreage has been decreased from 450,000 to less than 72 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

28,000 in 1995. Before most infested land was freed ticide-resistant and/or resistant variety attacking from this weed, farming activities such as soil sam- strains of pests. For example, aggressive strains of pling were restricted greatly by quarantine measures. the fungus Phytophthora infestans have been dis- North Carolina now manages the remaining eradica- persed over most of the potato- and tomato-production program, while APHIS participates in activities ing regions of the world (Rubin, Baider, and Cohen in South Carolina. 2001). Although new invasive pests may be the same As has been indicated, greater than half of econom- species as those already present or even indigenous ically important arthropod pests in the United States to an area, they possess new features such as resis- have been introduced. An insect central to IPM in this tance to pesticides, or even the capacity to transmit country is the cotton boll weevil (Anthonomus gran- plant pathogens such as virus vectors or to attack a dis). This pest, introduced from Mexico in the late wider range of crops. The recent introduction of new 1890s, exemplifies the importance that an introduced biotypes or species of Bemisia white fly in the south- pest can have in IPM, including economic losses. western United States exemplifies the challenges that Estimated amount of insecticides used to control this these altered plant pests pose to IPM programs. The insect in 1973 amounted to approximately one-third white fly crisis in Arizona cotton, which involves the of the total insecticide applied to agricultural crops silverleaf white fly (Bemisia argentifolii), resulted in in the country (USDA–APHIS 1998). Through an four to six times more insecticide applications than intensive long-term eradication program, weevil-free in years when insecticide efficiency against these cotton acreage has increased from 35,000 in 1983 to pests was not negated by resistant strains (Dennehy 4,600,000 in 1998. The economic benefit/cost ratio for 2000). this program has been estimated at 12 :1 on average Continual use of given pest-resistant cultivars of- for the United States and as great as 41 :1 in certain ten results in the appearance of “resistance-breaking” regions of the country (USDA–APHIS 1998). populations of crop pests. This problem, which in- Although not always documented clearly, plant volves pests such as root-knot and cyst nematodes, pathogens have affected and continue to affect IPM can be averted or minimized by deployment of an ap- programs. Containment of the introduced potato gold- propriate cropping system that includes nonhost crops en nematode (Globodera rostochiensis) essentially to as well as susceptible and resistant varieties. a few counties in New York State represents another success story for quarantine programs. But even though targeted by a federal quarantine program, the Reemergence of Old Plant Pests soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) invad- Subtle shifts in production environments, included most soybean production areas in the United ing differences in crop varieties that minimize germ- States. Currently, the research and extension efforts plasm diversity or environmental factors, may bring of nematologists and soybean breeders tend to focus about resurgence of specific plant pests. A classic on development of improved tactics and strategies for example of this problem was the national corn leaf managing this genetically diverse pathogen. blight epidemic (caused by Cochliobolus heterostro- Certain introduced pests overwhelm the capacities phus [Bipolaris maydis]), which resulted from the of humans to manage them. For instance, chestnut widespread use of Texas male sterile cytoplasm in blight, caused by the fungus Cryphonectria parasiti- most corn varieties in 1970. Corn yield losses for that ca, was discovered in the United States in 1904 (Schu- year were valued at more than $1 billion (Schumann mann 1991; Vitousek, Loope, and D’Antonio 1994). By 1991). Genetic resources were available, however, to the 1930s, this disease had destroyed most of the solve that problem by the following year, but the chestnut population. Eventually the fungus eliminat- amount of resistant seed was inadequate for all farm- ed the American chestnut, which previously had been ers. Recently, the U.S. wheat crop has encountered the most abundant tree in the eastern United States significant yield losses resulting from Fusarium head (Vitousek, Loope, and D’Antonio 1994). Dutch-elm blight (caused by Fusarium graminearum). A rela- disease, induced by Ophiostoma ulmni, resulted in tively new disease of U.S. wheat, karnal bunt (Tille- similar devastation of these stately trees in many U.S. tia indica), also has received much attention. cities (Schumann 1991). New and widespread pest problems likely will be In addition to problems resulting from the intro- associated with the predicted global warming in the duction of alien pests to given habitats or regions, United States, with pests normally limited to temper- major pest management problems are encountered as ate and to tropical regions invading the cooler regions a result of the development or the introduction of pes- of the country. Vitousek, Loope, and D’Antonio (1994) Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 73 concluded that humans distribute so many organisms ture (25 million) attest to the importance of this new from their native ranges to places worldwide that this issue (Cereijo 2001). With increasing concerns about dispersal eventually will result in loss of the regional threats to the U.S. food supply and the agricultural distinctiveness of the Earth’s plants and animals. industry, “The Agricultural Bioterrorism Counter- Decreased biodiversity can increase difficulties en- measures Act of 2001” was introduced in the U. S. countered in IPM by effecting less competition among Senate in October 2001 (Hutchinson 2001). Examples given pests and their natural enemies (Altieri 1994). of threats include mad cow disease and the foot and Global trade, regrettably, may compound bioinva- mouth disease, which already have been experienced sion problems as pest species accompany shipping main Europe. Approved U.S. legislation (CID 2002; terials or actual products. Because of host pest inter- Hawks 2002) outlined the purpose and approaches to actions, however, climate change can have positive, addressing the bioterrorism threat. Many of the tools negative, or neutral impacts on pathosystems (crop[s], and strategies that may be essential as countermea- associated pathogens, and their environment, which sures to the threats of agricultural bioterrorism are often includes humans) (Coakley, Scherm, and yet to be developed. Chakraborty 1999). Clearly, the combination of new pest invasions, the recurrence of outbreaks caused by Appendix A. Abbreviations and “old” pests, the appearance of pest strains resistant to available pesticides, and the development of pest Acronyms populations overcoming host resistance will continue a. acre to pose challenges to IPM practitioners. APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection As reflected in a presidental executive order (Clin- Service ton 1999), invasive plants and animals in the United Bt Bacillus thuringiensis States are receiving increasing attention and research. This order includes definitions of key terms, bu bushel related duties of federal agencies, a directive to estab- CIAT International Center for Tropical Agri- lish an Invasive Species Council, an outline of the culture council’s duties, and development and needed updates CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Im- of an Invasive Species Management Plan. Addition- provement Center al financial resources were requested to support this CIP International Potato Center endeavor as well as actually to control invasive plants CNIE Committee for the National Institute for and animals. Characterizations of invasive species the Environment in this report and elsewhere emphasize the magnitude and growing importance of these pests in the CRIS Current Research Information System United States, as well as the challenges they repre- CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, sent for IPM. Many new IPM tools and innovative and Extension Service technologies (Henkens et al. 2000; Lawler and Harm- D-Ddichloropropane-dichloropropene mix- ey 1993; Louws, Rademaker, and deBruijn 1999; ture Stewart 2000) offer promise for keeping invasives DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane under control. DMI de-methylation inhibitor EIPM Extension IPM Implementation Pro- gram Integrated Pest Management and ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay Agricultural Bioterrorism EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Bearing in mind the unprecedented “September FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 11th” tragedies in the United States, IPM specialists FDA Food and Drug Administration now must consider the tools and strategies needed to FQPA Food Quality Protection Act address potential agricultural bioterrorism. In addi- GDD growing degree days tion to the necessity of having an abundant supply of GIS geographic information system high-quality, safe food, the value of the products generated by the agricultural industry ($1.5 trillion in GMO genetically modified organism 1998) and the number of people employed in agricul- GPS global positioning system 74 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

HT herbicide-tolerant Kairomones. Plant-produced compounds that be- ICARDA International Center for Agricultural come incorporated into the body odor of herbi- Research in Dryland Areas vores. IFP integrated fruit production Multilines. A practice in which breeders use mixtures of cultivars, each with different resistance IPM integrated pest management genes. IPMI IPM Institute Pathosystems. Crop(s), associated pathogens, and IR–4 Interregional Research Project Number their environment, which often includes humans. 4 Pyramiding resistance genes. A technique in IRM insect resistance management which breeders use several resistance genes in a IRRI International Rice Research Institute single cultivar. Semiochemicals. Compounds that are involved in LCA life-cycle assessments communication among organisms. NAPIAP National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Soil inhabitants. Pathogens that produce long-term Assessment Program survival structures or that have broad host rang- NCFAP National Center for Food and Agricul- es. tural Policy Soil invaders. Pathogens that attack members of a NSF National Science Foundation single or a few plant families and are unable to PCR polymerase chain reaction survive after infected host tissue has decayed. Soil solarization. A process, widely used in tropi- P-days physiological days cal and subtropical regions, that uses clear poly- PIAP Pesticide Impact Assessment Program ethylene plastic mulches to warm soil tempera- PMAP Pest Management Alternatives Pro- tures. gram Transgenic. Having chromosomes into which one or PPM processing and production methods more genes from a different species have been RIPM Regional Integrated Pest Management incorporated either artificially or naturally. Grants Program Vertical resistance. Genetic resistance governed by single genes that provide resistance to specific RM resistance management races or biotypes of a pest. RTV rice tungro virus SAR systemic acquired resistance USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture Literature Cited USDA– U.S. Department of Agriculture–Ani- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Cereal Research Centre. 1998. APHIS mal and Plant Health Inspection Ser- Wheat stem rust, (18 December 2002) ULV ultra-low-volume Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plant Pathology. Academic Press, New York. 635 pp. yr year Allen, C. R., R. S. Lutz, and S. Demarais. 1995. Red imported fire ant impacts on northern bobwhite populations. Ecol Appl 3:632–638. Allen, C. T. 1994. Pink bollworm management in Texas. Texas Appendix B. Glossary Agricultural Extension Service Publication ENTO, AGR 2–5. Texas A&M University System, College Station. 9 pp. Allelopathy. The suppression of growth of one plant Alston, D. G., J. R. Bradley, Jr., D. P. Schmitt, and H. D. Coble. species by another due to the release of toxic sub- 1991. Response of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) stances. populations to canopy development in soybean as influenced by Fallows. Bare soil or flooding of land to help eradi- Heterodera glycines (Nematoda: Heteroderidae) and annual weed population densities. J Econ Entomol 84:267–276. cate certain pest populations. Altieri, M. A. 1994. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroec- Gene pool enrichment. Genetic evaluation and en- osystems. Food Products Press, An Imprint of the Haworth hancement; the public research area underlying Press, New York. most improvements in host plant resistance. Antonius, G. F. and J. C. Snyder, 1993. Trichome density and pes- Horizontal resistance. Genetic resistance governed ticide retention and half-life. J Environ Sci Health Pestic Food Contam Agric Wastes B 23:205–219. by multiple genes that provide resistance to all Åstrand, B. 2000. Mechatronics in Agriculture: Row Guidance pest races. System for Agricultural Field Machinery. Licentiate thesis, Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 75

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chalmers Uni- 84:644–648. versity of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. Burr, T. J., J. L. Norelli, C. L. Reid, L. K. Capron, L. S. Nelson, H. Ayers, A. D. 1948. Salt tolerance of birdsfoot trefoil. J Am. Soc S. Akdwinckle, and W. F. Wilcox. 1993. Streptomycin-resis- Agron 40:331–334. tant bacteria associated with fire blight infections. Plant Dis Baerveldt, A.-J. and B. Åstrand. 1997. Vision-guided mechanical 77:64–66. weed control, (22 January Campbell, B. C. and S. S. Duffey. 1979. Tomatine and parasitic 2003) wasps: Potential incompatibility of plant antibiosis with bio- Baker, T. K. and T. F. Peeper. 1990. Differential tolerance of win- logical control. Science 205:700–702. ter wheat (Triticum aestivum) to cyanazine and triazinone her- Carlson, J. D., M. E. Whalon, D. A. Landis, and S. H. Gage. 1991. bicides. Weed Technol 4:569–575. Evidence for long-range transport of potato leafhopper into Barbosa, P. and J. C. Schultz (eds.). 1987. Insect Pest Outbreaks. Michigan. Tenth Conference on Biotechnology and Aerobiology Academic Press, New York. and the Special Session on Hydrometeorology, Salt Lake City, Barham, E. 1997. “What’s in a Name?: Eco-Labelling in the Glo- Utah. Pp. 123–128. bal Food System.” Paper presented at the Joint Meetings of the Carpenter, J., A. Felsot, T. Goode, M. Hammig, D. Onstad, and S. Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society and the Associ- Sankula. 2002. Comparative Environmental Impacts of Bio- ation for the Study of Food and Society, Madison, Wisconsin, technology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton June 5–8, 1997, (18 Crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, December 2002) Iowa. Barker, K. R. and E. L. Davis. 1996. Assessing plant nematode Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CID). 2002. infestations and infections. Pp. 103–136. In S. H. DeBoer (ed.). Congress approves wide-ranging bioterrorism preparedness bill, Advances in Botanical Research (incorporating Advances in (23 January 2003) Barker, K. R. and S. R. Koenning. 1998. Developing sustainable Cereijo, M. 2001. Threat: Animal and Agricultural Bioterrorism, systems for nematode management. Annu Rev Phytopathol 76:165–205. Charudattan, O. 2000. Current status of biological control of Benbrook, C. 1998. IPM and the Marketplace, (18 December 2002) Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management: Con- Berti, A., C. Dunan, M. Sattin, G. Zanin, and P. Westra. 1996. A cepts, Research and Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Min- new approach to determine when to control weeds. Weed Sci nesota. 44:496–503. Christensen, C. M. and R. A. Meronuck. 1986. Quality Mainte- Blackburn, G. A. 1998. Quantifying chlorophylls and carotenoids nance in Stored Grains and Seeds. University of Minnesota, at leaf and canopy scale: An evaluation of some hyperspectral Minneapolis. 138 pp. approaches. Remote Sens Environ 66:273–285. Clinton, W. J. 1999. Executive Order: Invasive Species. Washing- Boerboom, C. M. 1999. Nonchemical options for delaying weed ton, DC., resistance to herbicides in Midwest cropping systems. Weed Coaker, T. H. 1987. Cultural methods: The crops. Pp. 69–88. In Technol 13:636–642. A. J. Burn, T. H. Coaker, and P. C. Jepson (eds.). Integrated Boland, G. S. and L. D. Kuykendall (eds.). 1998. Plant-Microbe Pest Management. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Interactions. Marcel Dekker, New York. Coakley, S. M., H. Scherm, and S. Chakraborty. 1999. Climate Boller, T. and F. Meins (eds.). 1992. Genes Involved in Plant De- change and plant disease management. Annu Rev Phytopathol fense. Springer-Verlag, New York. 37:399–426. Bradley, E. and M. Duffy. 1982. The Value of Plant Resistance to Collins, W. and R. L. Phillips. 1991. Plant breeding training in Soybean Cyst Nematodes: A Case Study of Forrest Soybeans. public institutions in the United States. Report Number 591. Staff Report. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Science and Education Resources Development, Cooperative Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 42 pp. State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Depart- Brenner, R. 1999. Hope for fire ant control. Agric Res 47:9. ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Bridge, J. 1996. Nematode management in sustainable and sub- Committee for the National Institute for the Environment (CNIE). sistence agriculture. Annu Rev Phytopathol 34:201–225. 1999a. Harmful Non-native Species: Issues for Congress III Bridges, D. 2000. Implications of pest-resistant/herbicide-toler- (April 8), Washington, D.C., (18 December 2002) (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management: Committee for the National Institute for the Environment (CNIE). Concepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, Phyto- 1999b. Harmful Non-native Species: Issues for Congress VI pathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. (April 8). Washington, D.C., (18 December 2002) breeding of horticultural crops in the United States. Hort- Consumers Union. 2002. Eco-labels: The Consumers Union Guide Science 20:826–830. to Environmental Labels, (18 December 2002) Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Cook, R. J. 1987. Report on the Research Briefing Panel on Bio- Buntin, G. D. and P. L. Raymer. 1989. Hessian fly (Diptera: Cec- logical Control in Managed Ecosystems. National Academy idomyiiadae) damage and forage production of winter wheat. Press, Washington, D.C. J Econ Entomol 82:301–306. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2000. Burns, J. R. and D. M. Benson. 2000. Biocontrol of damping-off of Invasive Plant Species. Issue Paper No. 13. CAST, Ames, Iowa. Catharanthus roseus caused by Pythium ultimum with Tricho- Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2002. derma virens and binucleate Rhizoctonia fungi. Plant Dis Invasive Pest Species: Impacts on Agricultural Production, 76 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Natural Resources, and the Environment. Issue Paper No. 20. Fleming, C. C. and T. O. Powers. 1998. Potato cyst nematode di- CAST, Ames, Iowa. agnostics: Morphology, differential hosts, and biochemical tech- Davis, J. R., O. C. Huisman, D. T. Westermann, L. H. Sorensen, A. niques. Pp. 91-113. In R. J. Marks and B. B. Brodie (eds.). T. Schneider, and J. C. Stark. 1994. The influence of cover crops Potato Cyst Nematodes. CAB International, Wallingford, Unit- on the suppression of Verticillium wilt of potato. Pp. 332–343. ed Kingdom. In G. W. Zehnder, M. L. Powelson, R. K. Hannson, and K. V. Food Alliance. 2002. Homepage, (18 Ramay (eds.). Advances in Potato Pest Biology and Manage- December 2002) ment. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Min- Franc, G. D., M. D. Harrison, and M. L. Powelson. 1985. The dis- nesota. persal of phytopathogenic bacteria. Pp. 37–49. In D. R. MacK- Davis, J. R., O. C. Huisman, D. T. Westermann, S. L. Hafez, D. O. enzie, C. S. Barfield, G. G. Kennedy, and R. D. Berger, with D. Everson, L. H. Sorensen, and A. T. Schneider. 1996. Effects of J. Taranto (eds.). The Movement and Dispersal of Agricultur- green manures on verticillium wilt of potato. Phytopathology ally Important Biotic Agents. Claitor’s Publishing Division, 86:444–453. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Davis, R. F., A. W. Johnson, and R. D. Wauchope. 1993. Acceler- Frey, J. K. 1996. National Plant Breeding Study. I: Human and ated degradation of fenamiphos and its metabolites in soil pre- financial resources devoted to plant breeding research and de- viously treated with fenamiphos. J Nematol 25:679-685. velopment in the United States in 1994. Report Number 98. Denholm, I. and M. W. Rowland. 1992. Tactics for managing pes- Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, ticide resistance in arthropods: Theory and practice. Annu Rev Iowa State University, Ames. of Entomol 37:91–112. Frey, J. K. 1997. National Plant Breeding Study. II: National plan Dennehy, T. J. 2000. Fulfilling the role of resistance management for promoting breeding programs for Minor Crops in the U.S. to preserve effectiveness of new insecticide technologies. Pp. Special Report Number 100. Iowa Agriculture and Home Eco- 400–417. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging nomics Experiment Station, Iowa State University, Ames. Technologies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Re- Frey, J. K. 1998. National Plant Breeding Study. III. National search, and Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. Plan for Genepool Enrichment of U.S. Crops. Report Number Dennis, C. (ed.). 1983. Post-harvest Pathology of Fruits and Veg- 101. Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Sta- etables. Academic Press, New York. tion, Iowa State University, Ames. DeSouza, K., J. Holt, and J. Colvin. 1995. Diapause, migration Frick, B. and A. G. Thomas. 1992. Weed surveys in different till- and pyrethroid-resistance dynamics in the cotton bollworm, age systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can J Plant Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ecol Entomol Sci 72:1337–1347. 20:333–342. Garcia, J. 2000. 110 Years of Federal Biological Control. ARS/ Dinesen, I. G. and A. van Zaayen. 1996. Potential of pathogen USDA News & Information. Washington, D.C., ornamental crops. Pp. 23, 137, 170. In S. H. DeBoer (ed.). Gavassoni, W. L., L. Tylka, and G. P. Munkvold. 2001. Relation- Advances in Botanical Research (incorporating Advances in ships between tillage and spatial patterns of Heterodora gly- Plant Pathology). Academic Press, London. cines. Phytopathology 91:534–545. Drees, B. M. and S. B. Vinson. 1998. Fire ants and their manage- Georghiou, G. P. (ed.). 1986. The magnitude of the resistance ment. Report Number B1536. Texas Agricultural Extension problem. Pp. 14–43. In Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Service, the Texas A&M University System, College Station. Tactics for Management. Committee on Strategies for the Man- Dufour, R. and J. Bachmann. 1998. Integrated Pest Management. agement of Pesticide Resistant Pest Populations, National Acad- Appropriate Technology for Transfer to Rural Areas (ATTRA), emy Press, Washington, D.C. (18 December 2002) Gianessi, L. and J. Carpenter. 1999. Agricultural Biotechnology Dufour, R. and L. Greer. 1995. Farmscaping. Appropriate Tech- Insect Control Benefits. National Center for Food and Agricul- nology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), (18 December 2002) Godfrey, L. D., P. B. Goodell, E. Grafton-Cardwell, N. C. Toscano, Duvick, D. N. 1984. Genetic diversity in major farm crops on the and E. T. Natwick. 2001. Cotton bollworm. UC IPM Pest farm and in reserve. Econ Bot 38:161–178. Management Guidelines: Cotton insects and mites. UC ANR Ellsbury, M. M., S. A. Clay, S. J. Fleischer, L. D. Chandler, and S. Publications 3444. 3 pp. M. Schneider. 2000. Use of GIS/GPS systems in IPM: Progress Gould, F. 1998. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: and reality. Pp. 419–438. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton Integrating pest genetics and ecology. Annu Rev Entomol (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management: 43:701–726. Concepts, Research and Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Granett, J. and A. Retnakaran. 1977. Stadial susceptibility of Minnesota. eastern spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumuferana (Lepi- El-Zik, K. M. and R. E. Frisbie. 1991. Integrated crop manage- doptera: Tortricidae) to insect growth regulator Dimilin. Can ment systems for pest control. Pp. 3–106. In D. Pimentel (ed.). Entomol 109:893–894. Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Green, S., S. M. Stewart-Wade, G. J. Boland, M. P. Teshler, and S. Raton, Florida. H. Liu. 1998. Formulating microorganisms for biological con- Farm Chemical Handbook (FCH). 2001. MeisterPro Information trol of weeds. Pp. 249–281. In G. J. Boland and L. D. Kuyken- Resources, Salem, Massachusetts. dall (eds.). Plant-Microbe Interactions. Marcel Dekker, New Fermin-Muñoz, G. A., B. Meng, K. Ko, S. Mazumdar-Leighton, A. York. Gubba, and J. E. Carroll. 2000. Biotechnology: A new era for Gutierrez, A. P., B. Wermelinger, F. Schulthess, J. U. Baumgart- plant pathology and plant protection. APSnet, (23 ysis of biological control of cassava pests in Africa. I. Simula- January 2003) tion of carbon nitrogen and water dynamics in cassava. J Appl Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 77

Ecol 25:901–920. ing Technologies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Gutierrez, A. P., P. Neuenschwanter, F. Schulthess, J. U. Baum- Research and Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. gartner, H. R. Herren, B. Wermelinger, B. Lohr, and C. K. El- Hutchinson, C. M., M. E. McGiffen, Jr., H. D. Ohr, J. J. Sims, and lis. 1988b. Analysis of biological control of cassava pests in J. O. Becker. 1999. Evaluation of methyl iodide as a soil fumi- Africa. II. Cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manigoti. J Appl gant for root-knot nematode control in carrot. Plant Dis 83:33– Ecol 25:921–940. 36. Haining Cowles, M. 1999. Cornell University IPM Program. An Hutchinson, K. B. 2001. S. 1563, The Agricultural Bioterrorism IPM Label on Supermarket Vegetables: A First for the Nation, Countermeasures Act of 2001. U. S. Congressional Record, (9 March October 17, 2001—Page S10796, Hall, B. and G. Kuepper. 1997. Making the Transition to Sustain- Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). 1999. Eco-la- able Farming, bels: Incomplete bibliography. In: Adding Value through En- Hall, F. Q. 2000. Delivering new crop protection agents within an vironmental Marketing: Opportunities for Food Producers, Pro- IPM environment. Pp. 323–338. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. cessors and Retailers. Proceedings of a Conference, Madison, Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Man- Wisconsin, December 6–7, 1999, (18 December 2002) St. Paul, Minnesota. IPM Institute of North America (IPMI). 2002a. CORE Values Hall, F. R. and J. J. Menn (eds.). 1999. Biopesticides: Use and Northeast; A Project of Mothers & Others, (18 December 2002) Hamm, J. J. and B. R. Wiseman. 1986. Plant resistance in a nu- IPM Institute of North America (IPMI). 2002b. IPM Standards, clear polyhedrosis virus for suppression of fall armyworm (Lep- Certification, and Labeling for Ag and Community IPM, (18 December 2002) Hanna, M., R. Hartzler, D. Erback, K. Paarlberg, and L. Miller. Jacobsen, B. J. and P. A. Backman. 1993. Biological and cultural 1996. Cultivation: An effective weed management tool. Uni- plant disease controls: Alternatives and supplements to chem- versity Extension PM-1623 (rev.). Iowa State University, Ames. icals in IPM systems. Plant Dis 77:311–315. Hawks, B. 2002. Rules and regulations—Agricultural Bioterror- Johansen, C. 1962. Principles of insect control. Pp. 138–158. In ism Protection Act of 2002: Listing of biological agents and tox- R. E. Pfadt (ed.). Fundamentals of Applied Entomology. Mac- ins and requirements and procedures for notification of posses- Millan, New York. sion. Fed Regist 67, No.155. USDA–APHIS, Washington, D.C. Johnson, A. W. 1998. Degradation of fenamiphos in agricultural Heald, C. M. 1987. Classical nematode management practices. production soil. J Nematol 30:40–44. Chapter 15. In J. A. Veech and D. W. Dickson (eds.). Vistas on Johnson, A. W., C. C. Dowler, N. C. Glaze, and A. M. Golden. 1992. Nematology. Society of Nematologists, Hyattsville, Maryland. Nematode numbers and crop yield in a fenamiphos-treated Heenan, D. P., A. C. Taylor, and A. R. Leys. 1990. The influence sweet corn-sweet potato-vetch cropping system. J Nematol of tillage, stubble management and crop rotation on the persis- 24:533–539. tence of great brome (Bromus diandrus Roth). Aust J Exp Ag- Jones, R. L. and F. A. Norris. 1998. Factors affecting the degra- ric 30:227–230. dation of aldicarb and ethoprop. J Nematol 30:45–55. Henkens, R., C. Bonaventura, V. Kazantseva, M. Moreno, J. O’Daly, Julien, M. H. and M. W. Griffiths. 1998. Biological control of weeds: R. Sundseth, S. Wegner, and M. Wojciechowski. 2000. Use of A world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. 4th ed. DNA technologies in diagnostics. Pp. 52–66. In G. G. Kennedy CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom. and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Kahn, R. P. 1991. Exclusion as a plant disease strategy. Annu Pest Management: Concepts, Research and Implementation. Rev Phytopathol 29:219–246. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. Katan, J. and J. E. DeVay. 1991. Soil Solarization. CRC Press, Hess, F. D., Sr. and S. O. Duke. 2000. Genetic engineering in IPM: Boca Raton, Florida. A case study. Herbicide tolerance. Pp. 126–140. In G. G. Kennedy, G. G. 2000. Perspectives on progress in IPM. Pp. 2–11. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technolo- Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Imple- gies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and mentation. APS Press, the American Phytopathological Soci- Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. ety, St. Paul, Minnesota. Kennedy, G. G. and T. B. Sutton (eds.). 2000. Conference on Emerg- Hoffman-Hergarten, S., K. Hasky, M. Reitz, and R. A. Sikora. 1997. ing Technologies for IPM: Concepts, Research and Implemen- Induced systemic resistance by Rhozobacteria toward the cyst tation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. nematode, Globodera pallida, on potato. Pp. 292–295. In A. Kennedy, G. G. and M. E. Whalon. 1995. Managing pest resis- Ogoshi, K. Kobayashi, Y. Homma, F. Kodama, N. Kondo, and tance to Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins: Constraints and in- S. Akinow (eds.). Plant Growth-Promoting Rhozobacteria: centives to implementation. J Econ Entomol 88:454–460. Present Status and Future Prospects. Proceedings of the Fourth Kerry, B. R. and K. Evans. 1996. New strategies for the manage- Workshop on Plant Growth-Promoting Rhozobacteria: Present ment of plant-parasitic nematodes. Pp. 134–152. In R. Hall Status and Future Prospects, OECD Joint Workshop, Sapporo, (ed.). Principles and Practices of Managing Soilborne Plant Japan. Pathogens. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. Hollings, M. 1965. Disease control through virus-free stock. Annu Kloepper, J. W., R. Rodriguez-Kabana, J. A. McInroy, and R. W. Rev Phytopathol 3:376–396. Young. 1992. Rhizosphere bacteria antagonistic to soybean cyst Horn, D. J. 1988. Ecological Approaches to Pest Management. (Heterodera glycines) and root-knot (Meloidogyne incognita) Guilford Press, New York, NY. 285 pp. nematodes: Identification by fatty acid analysis and frequency Hoy, M. A. 2000. Current status of biological control of insects. of biological cotnrol activity. Plant Soil 139:75–84. Pp. 210–225. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerg- Koeller, W. 1996. Recent developments in DMI resistance. Pp. 78 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

301–311. In H. Lyr, P. E. Russel, and H. D. Sisler (eds.). Mod- Martin, R. J. and W. L. Felton. 1993. Effect of crop rotation, till- ern Antifungal Compounds. Intercept Limited, Andover, United age practice, and herbicides on the population dynamics of wild Kingdom. oats in wheat. Austr J Exp Agric 33:159–165. Koenning, S. R. and S. C. Anand. 1991. Effects of wheat and soy- McFadyen, R. E. C. 1998. Biological control of weeds. Annu Rev bean planting date on Heterodera glycines population dynam- Entomol 43:369–393. ics and soybean yield with conventional tillage. Plant Dis McGaughey, W. H. and M. E. Whalon. 1992. Managing insect re- 75:301–304. sistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. Science 258:1451– Koenning, S. R., D. P. Schmitt, and K. R. Barker. 1993. Effects of 1455. cropping systems on population density of Heterodera glycines Meneley, J. C. 2000. Challenges to the commercialization of bio- and soybean yield. Plant Dis 77:780–786. logical control technologies for IPM. Pp. 289–304. In G. G. Koscelny, J. A., T. F. Peeper, J. B. Solie, and S. G. Solomon, Jr. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for 1991. Seeding date, seeding rate, and row spacing affect wheat Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Imple- (Triticum aestivum) and cheat (Bromus secaninus). Weed Tech- mentation. APS Press, The American Phytopathological Soci- nol 5:707–712. ety, St. Paul, Minnesota. Kuykendall, L. D. and F. M. Hashem. 1998. Enhancement of bio- Michigan State University (MSU). 2002. Fruit Spraying Calen- logical nitrogen fixation using strain-specific bacterial viruses dar, MSU E154, for biological control of ineffective Bradyrhizobium or Rhizobi- (27 February 2003) um. Pp. 297–308. In G. S. Boland and L. D. Kuykendall (eds.). Midgarden, D., S. J. Fleischer, R. Weisz, and Z. Smilowitz. 1997. Plant-Microbe Interactions. Marcel Dekker, New York. Site-specific integrated pest management impact on develop- Kwong, O. 2000. Weeds Gone Wild: Alien Plant Invaders of Nat- ment of esfenvalerate resistance in Colorado potato beetle (Co- ural Areas. Plant Conservation Alliance, Washington, D.C., leoptera: Chrysomelidae) and on densities of natural enemies. (27 February 2003) J Econ Entomol 90:855–867. Lawler, C. and M. A. Harmey. 1993. Immunological detection of Monteith, L. G. 1960. Influence of plants other than the food plants nematode antigens on the surface of a wood section. Fund Appl of their host on host-finding by tachinid parasites. Can Ento- Nematol 16:521–523. mol 92:641–652. Levine, E. and H. Oloumi-Sadeghi. 1991. Management of diabroc- Mortensen, K. 1998. Biological control of weeds using microor- ticite rootworms in corn. Annu Rev Entomol 36:229–255. ganisms. Pp. 223–247. In G. J. Boland and L. D. KuyKendall Lewis, R. D. and J. H. Hunter. 1940. The nitrogen, organic car- (eds.). Plant-Microbe Interactions. Marcel Dekker, New York. bon, and pH of some southeastern coastal plain soils as influ- Muid, B. 1993. Host plant modification of insecticide resistance enced by green-manure crops. Agron J 32:586–601. in Myzus persicae. Ph.D. diss., University of Reading, United Lewis, W. J., R. L. Jones, and A. N. Sparks. 1972. A host-seeking Kingdom. stimulation for the egg parasite Trichogramma evanescens: Its Musgrave, M. E. and N. Ding. 1998. Evaluating wheat cultivars source and demonstration of its laboratory and field activity. for waterlogging tolerance. Crop Sci 38:90–97. Annu Entomol Soc Am 65:1087–1089. Natarajan, K. 1990. Effect of leaf pubescence in cotton, Gossypi- Liebman, M., C. L. Mohler, and C. P. Staver. 2001. Ecological um hirsutum, on the parasitism of whitefly, Menisia tabaci Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge University (Gennadius). J Biol Control 4:57–58. Press, United Kingdom. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1972. Genetic Vulnerabili- Locascio, S. J., J. P. Gilreath, D. W. Dickson, T. A. Kucharek, J. P. ty of Major Crops. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, Jones, and J. W. Noling. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to me- D.C. 307 pp. thyl bromide for polyethylene-mulched tomato. HortScience National Research Council (NRC). 1992. NEEM: A Tree for Solv- 32:1208–1211. ing Global Problems. National Academy Press, Washington, Loper, J. E. and V. O. Stockwell. 2000. Current status of biologi- D.C. cal control of plant diseases. Pp. 240–256. Emerging Technol- National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Ecologically Based Pest ogies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research and Management: New Solutions for a New Century. National Acad- Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. emy Press, Washington, D.C. 144 pp. Louws, F. J., J. L. W. Rademaker, and F. J. deBruijn. 1999. The National Research Council (NRC). 2000. The Future Role of Pes- three Ds of PCR-based genomic analyses of phytobacteria: Di- ticides in U.S. Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washing- versity, detection, and disease diagnosis. Annu Rev Phytopathol ton, DC. 37:81–125. National Science Foundation (NSF), Center for Integrated Pest Luther, G. C., H. R. Valenzuela, and J. DeFrank. 1996. Effects of Management. 2002. Virtual Center, (18 December 2002) waii. Environ Entomol 25:39–47. Nester, E., L. Thomashow, M. Metz, and M. Gordon. 2002. 100 Lyon, D. J., A. J. Bussan, J. O. Evans, C. A. Mallory-Smith, and T. Years of Bacillus thuringiensis: A critical scientific assessment. F. Peeper. 2002. Pest management implications of glyphosate- A report from the American Academy of Microbiology, Wash- resistance wheat in the western United States. Weed Technol ington, D.C. 16:680–690. Nicol, D., S. D. Wratten, N. Eaton, and S. V. Copaja. 1993. Effects Magdoff, F. and H. van Es. 2000. Building Soils for Better Crops of DIMBOA levels in wheat on the susceptibility of the grain (2d ed.). Sustainable Agiculture Network, Burlington, Vermont. aphid Sitobion avenae to deltamethrin. Ann Appl Biol 122:427– Main, C. E., T. Keever, G. J. Holmes, and J. M. Davis. 2001. Fore- 433. casting long-range transport of mildew spores and spread of Nicot, P. C. and D. I. Rouse. 1987. Precision and bias of three quan- plant disease epidemics. APSnet, St. Paul, Minnesota, (27 February 875–881. 2003) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)–Technical Work- Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 79

ing Group on Pesticides. 2000. Status of harmonization of data research directions. Environ Entomol 12:625–629. requirements and test protocols for pesticide registration, Rodgers, T. H. and J. E. Giddens. 1957. Green manure and cover crops. Pp. 252–257. In USDA Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. (27 February 2003) Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Norton, G. A. and G. R. Conway. 1977. The economic and social Roe, R. M., W. D. Bailey, F. Gould, C. E. Sorenson, G. G. Kennedy, context of pest, disease, and weed problems. Pp. 205–226. In J. S. Bacheler, R. L. Rose, E. Hodgson, and C. L. Sutula. 2000. J. N. Cherrett and G. R. Sagar (eds.). The Origins of Pest, Par- Detection of resistant insects and IPM. Pp. 67–84. In G. G. asites, Disease, and Weed Problems. Blackwell, Oxford, Unit- Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for ed Kingdom. Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Imple- Onstad, D. W., M. G. Joselyn, S. A. Isard, E. Levine, J. L. Spencer, mentation. APS Press, The American Phytopathological Soci- L. W. Bledsoe, C. R. Edwards, C. D. DiFonzo, and H. Willson. ety, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1999. Modeling the spread of western corn rootworm (Co- Roush, R. T. 1989. Designing resistance management programs: leoptera: Chrysomelidae) populations adapting to soybean-corn How can you choose? Pestic Sci 26:423–441. rotation. Environ Entomol 28:188–194. Rubin, E., A. Baider, and Y. Cohen. 2001. Phytophthora infestens Panse, A., J. H. C. Davis, and G. Fischbeck. 1997. Yield forma- produces oospores in fruits and seeds of tomato. Phytopatholo- tion in mixtures of rust resistant and susceptible plants of com- gy 91:1074–1080. mon bean. J Agron Crop Sci Berlin 178:111–116. Ruesink, W. G. 1980. Economics of integrated pest management: Pedigo, L. 1989. Entomology and Pest Management. Macmillan discussion—An entomologist’s view of IPM research needs. Am Publishing Company, New York. J Agric Econ 62:1014–1015. Pedigo, L. P. 1999. Entomology and Pest Management. 3d ed. Russell, G. E. 1978. Plant Breeding for Pest and Disease Resis- Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. tance. Butterworths, London. Pieters, A. J. and R. J. McKee. 1929. Green manuring and its Russo, J. M. 2000. Weather forecasting for IPM. Pp. 453–473. In application to agricultural practices. Agron J 21:985–993. G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies Pieters, A. J. and R. J. McKee. 1938. The use of cover and green- for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Im- manure crops. Pp. 431–444. In USDA Yearbook of Agriculture. plementation. APS Press, The American Phytopathological U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Society. St. Paul, Minnesota. Pimentel, D. 1961. An evaluation of insect resistance in brocolli, Saxena, R. C., H. D. Justo, Jr., and E. L. Palanginan. 1988. Trap brussels sprouts, cabbage, collards and kale. J Econ Entomol crop for Nephotettix virescens (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) and 54:156–158. tungro management in rice. J Econ Entomol 81:1485–1488. Porter, S. D. and D. A. Savignano. 1990. Invasion of polygyne fire Schalk, J. M. and R. Ratcliffe. 1976. Evaluation of ARS [Agricul- ants decimate native ants and disrupts arthropod community. tural Research Service] program on alternative methods of in- Ecology 6:2095–2106. sect control: Host plant resistance to insects. Bull Entomol Soc Price, P. W. 1986. Ecological aspects of host plant resistance and Am 22:7–10. biological control: Interactions among three trophic levels. Pp. Schmidt, K. 1995. A new ant on the block (fire ants). New Scien- 11–30. In D. J. Boethel and R. D. Eikenbary (eds.). Interac- tist 148:28–31. tions of Plant Resistance and Parasitoids and Predators of In- Schubert, T. S., S. A. Rizvi, X. Sun, T. R.. Gottward, J. H. Graham, sects. Halsted Press, New York. and W. N. Dixon. 2001. Meeting the challenge of eradicating Price, P. W. 1997. Insect Ecology. 3d ed. 1997. John Wiley & citrus canker in Florida again. Plant Dis 85:340–356. Sons, New York. Schumann, G. L. 1991. Plant Diseases: Their Biology and Social Price, P. W., C. E. Bouton, P. Gross, B. A. McPherson, J. N. Th- Impact. APS Press, American Phytopathological Society, St. ompson, and A. J. Weis. 1980. Interactions among three trophic Paul, Minnesota. levels: Influence of plant on interactions between insect herbi- Schuster, M. F., P. D. Calvin, and W. C. Langston. 1983. Interac- vores and natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65. tion of high tannin with bollworm control by Pydin and Dipel. Quakenbush, L. S. and R. N. Andersen. 1984. Effect of soybean Pp. 72–73. Proceedings of the 1983 Beltwide Cotton Production (Glycine max) interference on eastern black nightshade Research Conference. National Cotton Council of America, (Solanum ptycanthum). Weed Sci 32:638–645. Memphis, Tennessee. Rainforest Alliance. 2002. Rainforest Marketplace. Products from Schweizer, E. E., D. W. Lybecker, L. W. Wiles, and P. Westra. 1993. Farms Certified by the Sustainable Agriculture Network. New Bioeconomic weed management models in crop production. Pp. York, < http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/marketplace/eco-ok/ 103–107. In D. R. Buxton, R. Sibles, R. A. Forsberg, B. L. Blad, index.html> (19 December 2002) K. H. Asay, G. M. Paulsen, and R. F. Wilson (eds.). Interna- Read, D. P., P. P. Feeny, and R. B. Root. 1970. Habitat selection tional Crop Science I. Crop Science Society of America, Madi- by the aphid parasite Diaeretiella rapae (Hymenoptera: Bra- son, Wisconsin. conidae) and hyperparasite Charips brassicae (Hymenoptera: Schweizer, E. E., P. Westra, and D. W. Lybecker. 1998. Seedbank Cynipidae). Can Entomol 102:1567–1578. and emerged annual weed populations in corn (Zea mays) fields Reigart, J. R. and J. R. Roberts. 1999. Recognition and manage- in Colorado. Weed Technol 12:243–247. ment of pesticide poisonings. 735-R-98-003. Office of Preven- Sherrick, S. and G. Head. 2000. General concepts, status, and tion, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Pro- potential transgenic plants in IPM. Pp. 96–199. In G. G. tection Agency, Washington, D.C. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Reiners, S., C. Petzoldt, and M. Hoffmann (eds.). 1999. Integrated Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Imple- Crop and Pest Management Recommendations for Commercial mentation. APS Press, American Phytopathological Society, St. Vegetable Production. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Paul, Minnesota. Risch, S. J., D. Andrew, and M. A. Altieri. 1983. Agroecosystem Smith, S. 1992. Farming activities and family farms: Getting diversity and pest control: Data, tentative conclusions and new the concepts right. Joint Economic Committee Symposium on 80 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Agricultural Industrialization and Family Farms: The Role of traditional farmers. Plant Dis 74:96–102. Federal Policy, United States Congress, 21 October, 1992. 18 Turlings, T. C. J., J. H. Tumlinson, and W. J. Lewis. 1990. Ex- pp. ploitation of herbivore-induced plant odors by host-seeking par- Southwood, T. R. E. 1978a. Ecological Methods: With Particular asitic wasps. Science 250:1251–1253. Reference to the Study of Insect Populations. Chapman and Hall, Ullstrup, A. J. 1972. The impacts of the southern corn leaf blight London. epidemics of 1970–1972. [Helminthosporium turcicum] Annu Southwood, T. R. E. 1978b. Escape in space and time—Conclud- Rev Phytopathol 10:37–50. ing remarks. Pp. 277–279. In H. Dingle (ed.). Evolution of University of Massachusetts. 2000. Integrated Pest Management: Insect Migration and Diapause. Springer-Verlag, New York. Community Education, Partners with Nature, (18 December 2002) rie (eds). Concepts in Pest Management. North Carolina State U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. Current Research University, Raleigh. Information System, Science and Education Resources Devel- Sparks, T. C., G. D. Thompson, H. A. Kirst, M. B. Hertlein, J. S. opment, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Mynderse, J. R. Turner, and T. V. Worden. 1999. Fermenta- Service, (18 Decem- tion-derived insect control agents. P. 172. In F. R. Hall and J. ber 2002) J. Menn (eds.). Biopesticides: Use and Delivery. Humana Press, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspec- Totowa, New Jersey. tion Service (USDA–APHIS). 1998. Agriculture Fact Book 98. Stalker, H. T. and J. P. Murphy (eds.). 1991. Plant Breeding in Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Animal and Plant Health the 1990s—Proceedings of the Symposium on Plant Breeding in Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, the 1990s. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Washington, D.C., (19 December 2002) eases of Herbaceous Perennials: The Biological Approach. Ball U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspec- Publishing, Batavia, Illinois. tion Service (USDA–APHIS). 2003. Recently published APH- Stemilt Management. 2002. ‘Responsible Choice’—What Does It IS rules and notices, (19 December web.report.html> (23 January 2003) 2002) U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Stewart, S. J. 2000. Pathogen detection and pesticide uses. Pp. Service (USDA–NASS). 1999. Trends in U.S. Agriculture, 85–93. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Conference on Emerging Technologies for IPM: Concepts, Research and (23 January 2003) Implementation. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. The Envi- Sticher, L., B. MauchMani, and J. P. Metraux. 1997. Systemic ronmental Protection Agency’s White Paper on Bt Plant-Pesti- acquired resistance. Annu Rev Phytopathol 35:235–270. cide Resistance Management. EPA Publication 739-S-98-001. Stinner, R. 2002. Index of Data Sources for National Site (USDA EPA, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Regional Pest Management Centers), (27 February 2003) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Pesticide Stirling, G. R. 1991. Biological Control of Plant Parasitic Nema- industry sales and usage. 733–R–98–001. Office of Prevention, todes. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protec- Sullivan, P. 1998. An Overview of Cover Crops and Green Manures: tion Agency, Washington, D.C. Fundamentals of Sustainable Agriculture, (27 February 2003) ing the Clean Air Act & Montreal Protocol Methyl Summy, K. R. and E. G. King. 1992. Cultural control of cotton in- Bromide Phaseouts, (19 December 2002) Tabashnik, B. E. 1994. Evolution of resistance to Bacillus thur- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Biopesticides ingiensis. Annu Rev Entomol 39:47–49. Registration Action Document Bacillus thuringiensis Plant- Takahashi, F. 1964. Reproduction curve with two equilibrium Incorporated Protectants (10/16/2001), (23 January 2003) Res Pop Ecol 6:28–38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department Tamo, M. 1991. The interactions between cowpea (Vigna unguic- of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. EPA/USDA Position Paper on ula Walp.) and the bean flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjosted- Insect Resistance Management for Bt Crops. June 18, 1999 ti Trybom) in the Republic of Benin. Ph.D. diss., Swiss Feder- (with minor revisions July 12, 1999), (6 March 2003) Tedford, E. and R. A. Brown. 2000. Integrating new fungicide tech- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department nologies in IPM. Pp. 355–342. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. of Agriculture (USDA). 2001. Pesticide Registration (PR) No- Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Man- tice to Manufacturers, Formulators, Producers, and Registrants agement: Concepts, Research and Implementation. APS Press, of Pesticide Products, (23 January 2003) Thorpe, K. W. and P. Barbosa. 1986. Effects on consumption of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Depart- high and low nicotine tobacco by Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera: ment of Agriculture (USDA). 2003. Pesticides: Biopesticides, Sphinigidae) on survival of gregarious endoparasitoid Cotesia (23 January congragata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J Chem Ecol 12:1329– 2003) 1337. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2001. Agricultural pesti- Thurston, H. D. 1990. Plant disease management practices of cides: Management improvements needed to further promote Integrated Pest Management Toolbox 81

integrated pest management. Report GAO–01–815, U.S. Gen- Kingdom. 45 pp. eral Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Workneh, F., G. L. Tylka, X. B. Yang, J. Faghigi, and J. M. Ferris. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1993. Harmful non- 1999. Regional assessment of soybean brown stem rot, Phytoph- indigenous species in the United States. Assessment FB565. thora sojae, and Heterodera glycines using area-frame sampling: United States Office of Technology, Washington, D.C. Prevalence and effects of tillage. Phytopathology 89:204–211. Valenzuela, H. R. 2000. Ecologically-based practices for vegeta- Worsham, A. D. 1989. Current and potential techniques using ble crops production in the tropics. Hortic Rev 24:139–228. allelopathy as an aid in weed management. Pp. 275–291. In Van Gessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from C. H. Chou and G. R. Waller (eds.). Phytochemical Ecology: Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703–705. Allelochemicals, Mycotoxins and Insect Pheromones and Al- VanKirk, J. and L. Garling. [n.d.] IPM Labeling: A Discussion of lomones. Monograph Series Number Nine. Academia Sinica, Benefits and Challenges to Land Grant Involvement in IPM Taipei, Taiwan. Labeling and Related Initiatives. Penn. State IPM Program, Young, L. D. 1998. Influence of soybean cropping sequences on (9 March seed yield and female index of the soybean cyst nematode. Plant 2002) Dis 82:615–619. Viglierchio, D. R. 1991. The World of Nematodes. D. R. Viglierchio, Ypema, H. L. and R. E. Gold. 1999. Kresoxim-methyl: Modifica- Davis, California. tion of a naturally occurring compound to produce a new fungi- Vitousek, P., L. Loope, and C. D’Antonio. 1994. Biological inva- cide. Plant Dis 83:4–17. sion as a global change, (23 January 2003) . Warrior, P., L. A. Rehberger, M. Beach, P. A. Grau, G. W. Kirfman, Zurek, E. 2002a. About Pest Management Centers. (USDA Re- and J. M. Conley. 1999. Commercial development and intro- gional Pest Management Centers). Waterworth, H. E. 1993. Processing foreign plant germplasm at Zurek, E. 2002b. Welcome to the National Site for the USDA Re- the National Plant Germplasm Center. Plant Dis 77:854–860. gional Pest Management Centers Information System, continues. Agric Res 9:48. Wei, G., J. W. Kloepper, and S. Tuzun. 1996. Induced systemic resistance to cucumber diseases and increased growth by plant- growth promoting Rhizobacteria under field conditions. Phy- Related Web Sites topathology 86:221–224. Wiles, L. J. and E. E. Schweizer. 1999. The cost of counting and http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/ identifying weed seeds and seedlings. Weed Sci 47:667–673. http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu Willey, R. W. 1979. Intercropping: Its importance and research http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm need. Field Crop Abstr 32:1–10. http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/ipm.html Williams, D. 1997. ARS Quarterly Report. Center for Medical, http://www.efn.org/~ipmpa Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Gainesville, Florida. http://www.invasivespecies.org Wilson, M. 1997. Biocontrol of aerial plant diseases in agricul- http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu ture and horticulture: Current approaches and future pros- http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/ pects. J Indust Microb Biotech 19:188–191. http://www.sare.org/htdocs/docs/search.html [Sustainable Agricul- Wolfe, M. S. 1990. Intra-crop diversification, disease, yield, and ture Network] quality. British Crop Protection Council. Farnham, United 82 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

3 New and Emerging Technologies

New technologies based on computers, cell phones, duction and pest pressures can differ spatially across biotechnology products, the World Wide Web, and so- production landscapes (Figure 3.2). From the com- called “smart” machines are affecting at an ever-in- bine, farmers harvesting crops can see weedy patch- creasing pace many disciplines, including agriculture, es or dry-knoll crop effects, for instance. Differences medicine, communications, aviation, navigation, ed- in crop yield potentials can be due to differences in ucation, and commerce. These new technologies are soil type and quality, soil water-holding capacity, and/ being applied to agriculture by private companies or or soil fertility. Although crop yield rates differ with- through evolving public and/or private research (Fig- in a field, growers traditionally apply fertilizers, pes- ure 3.1). Likewise, bioinformatics, or the merging of ticides, water, and seeds uniformly, without regard genetic and information technologies, is affecting pest to site-specific needs or to the production potentials management as a component of integrated crop proof different field zones. duction. Three new emerging technologies likely to Precision farming, or site-specific agricultural man- affect integrated pest management (IPM) adoption agement, is being promoted actively by several agri- are (1) precision farming tools to deliver site-specific business sectors. The goal of precision farming, which IPM, (2) genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and can make use of computers, global positioning system (3) integrated systems. (GPS) receivers, advanced computer software, geographical information systems (GIS), management maps, decision support system (DSS) models, and Site-Specific Integrated Pest variable-rate application equipment to modify farming input levels while monitoring final crop-yield, is Management to apply an appropriate amount of inputs at an appropriate time on an appropriate area. By using crop Precision Farming harvesters equipped with GPS and yield monitors, farmers can generate yield maps identifying spatial Many food and fiber producers know that crop pro- yield variations. Such yield data have helped farm-

Figure 3.1. To make variable-rate applications, modern farm Figure 3.2. As a result of many variable factors affecting crop equipment is equipped increasingly with computers, production, crop growth and yield differ across monitors, global positioning system receivers, and fields and regions. Photo courtesy of P. Westra, variable-rate controllers. Photo courtesy of P. Colorado State University. Westra, Colorado State University.

82 New and Emerging Technologies 83

savings in certain instances by engaging in site-specific input management, especially when sampling cost can be spread over several years (Figure 3.5). Such prescription applications may lower input costs and protect environmental quality. More and more agriculture input dealers are offering variable applications of fertilizers and chemicals by means of specialized equipment (Fleming, Westfall, and Heer- mann 1999). Much pioneering site-specific research has been conducted with variable nutrient applications in fields with soils that differ in texture, organic matter, content, pH, and yield potentials.

Water Application Figure 3.3. Use of a crop harvester equipped with a yield monitor allows generation of a yield map showing yield Irrigation is a very important factor in U.S. food variability within a field. Photo courtesy of P. production: the 15% of U.S. cropped acreage that is Westra, Colorado State University. irrigated produces 40% of U.S. crop value. Approxi- ers appreciate a wide variety of variable aspects with- mately one-third of irrigated land (more than 17 mil- in their fields, as well as the need to implement site- specific management of fields (Figure 3.3).

Site-Specific Input Management

Fertilizer and Pesticide Application Although practiced in most areas, high application rates of fertilizers and pesticides on all soils cannot be justified. Matching fertility and pesticide inputs to both soil type and potential crop-yield should increase profits for growers using these IPM strategies (Figure 3.4). After discounting for the cost of accurate sampling, growers can realize significant cost

Figure 3.4. Knowledge of variation in soil type obtained from Figure 3.5. Sampling for pest presence and density can improve this kind of aerial photography is used to map dif- IPM strategies to improve crop production. Photo ferent management zones across a field. Photo courtesy of P. Westra, Colorado State University. courtesy of P. Westra, Colorado State University. 84 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

diction of pest outbreaks and for management of crop water applications (Doesken et al. 1998) (Figure 3.7). By integrating a sprinkler system control with a computer program estimating crop water needs (Buchle- iter, Heermann, and Duke 1995), an irrigator can minimize over-irrigation problems such as ponded water from excessive runoff or waterlogged soils. This approach also decreases the amounts of leached water-soluble pesticides and soil-applied nutrients such as nitrate.

Prescription Crops Traditionally, plant breeders have focused on crop Figure 3.6. Precision irrigation and pesticide application will be yields, agronomic traits, or pathogen and/or insect possible with the new-generation irrigation systems resistance. More recently, plant breeding methods under development. Photo courtesy of P. Westra, have been combined with new biological techniques Colorado State University. to produce crop cultivars with unique properties such lion acres [a.]) is irrigated by self-propelled sprinkler as resistance to pests, pesticides, heat, drought, and systems, which can be automated readily. Comput- salinity. Precision-farming tools designed to identi- erized controls, now offered by all manufacturers of fy and to describe variability across a field or a land- these systems, have tremendous potential to improve scape—with respect to pest populations, soil at- water control so that a crop environment conducive tributes, and environmental conditions—will lend to pest management can be maintained. Computer- themselves readily to the planting, according to a pre- ized controls also have the potential to control chem- scription map, of a patchwork of crop cultivars across ical applications so that they are made only when an area. Companies are engineering specialized farm needed (Duke et al. 1997) (Figure 3.6.). equipment capable of planting crops at variable rates Recently developed controls allow the irrigator to or of planting, in a single pass, different cultivars in apply variable amounts of water to different portions different areas of a field. of a field, perhaps to account for areas with more or less vegetation or to control spread of disease by lim- Automated Data Acquisition iting water application in the affected area. Networks of automated agricultural meteorological stations in The high cost of spatial data collection is trigger- many states now provide near-real-time data for pre- ing widespread research into automated data collection. Sensing technologies can be categorized broadly, based on distance from the crop pest locus, as either remote or proximate.

Remote Sensing To monitor ecosystems or to allow for the making of time-sensitive management decisions, remote sensing generally involves data collection from satellite or airborne platforms (Figure 3.8). The first satellite designed specifically to collect data from the earth’s surface was Landsat 1, which was launched in 1972. Landsat 1 multispectral data have been used in agriculture, forestry, geology, land-use planning, and other areas. Hatfield and Pinter (1993) provide an excellent review of the use of remote sensing in the Figure 3.7. Automated weather stations can provide real-time, assessment of crop conditions. site-specific weather data that can be used to seed crop-management decision support systems. Photo New and emerging applications of this technology courtesy of P. Westra, Colorado State University. are being developed rapidly. Operational application New and Emerging Technologies 85

ty would be useful to precision farming, included soil moisture content, crop phenology, crop growth, crop water evaporation rate, crop nutrient deficiency, crop disease, weed infestation, and insect infestation. Current limitations for image-based remote sensing applications are due mainly to restricted spectral range, coarse spatial resolution, slow turnaround time, and inadequate repeat coverage. Upcoming commercial Earth-observation satellites, however, may provide the resolution, timeliness, and quality required for the monitoring of seasonally variable crop/soil conditions and for the managing of crops in a time-critical manner. Private and public entities will need to cooperate to develop infrastructure for Figure 3.8. Multiband cameras in airplanes or on ground rigs incorporating remote sensing technology into preci- can be used to detect nutrient, water, or disease sion farming. Data collection often will be contract- stress in crop plants. Photo courtesy of P. Westra, Colorado State University. ed on a fee-for-service basis, with a single company providing the final product to the farmer. of remotely sensed crop coefficients for estimation of Information obtained through remote sensing may site-specific crop water use is under development by not be available immediately for pest management engineers (Bausch 1995), and various scientists are purposes. Commercial sales of remote sensing infor- developing and refining techniques using remote mation have created a new support industry for agri- sensing to assess plant nitrogen status. Advanced culture. computer vision, size, and shape characteristics can The IKONOS satellite used by Space Imaging Cor- be used to identify grass and broadleaf weed species poration will deliver one-meter resolution images re- for spot spraying. This system mounted on field collected every three days to deliver, for marketing spraying equipment requires additional developing, purposes, time-sensitive information such as crop refining, and testing under large-scale field conditions growth stage, crop stress, and canopy coverage. Such (Meyer et al. 1998) (Figure 3.9). time-sensitive information may be crucial to the ear- Moran, Inoue, and Barnes (1997) reviewed the poly detection of disease, insect, drought, or fertility tential for image-based remote sensing to provide spa- stress, especially in valuable horticultural crops. tially and temporally distributed information for site- Certain commercial companies offer essential site- specific crop management or precision farming. specific information and management interpretations Topics reviewed, for which information on variabili- daily to growers and agribusinesses. For example, VantagePoint Network, an Internet-based crop management and record keeping system, offers growers a low-cost, easy-to-use information system that includes tracking of crop production activities, grain storage, and sales, as well as creation of farm maps, all in an environment keeping important information private for exclusive use by the grower. Aided by remote sensing data and by crop managers specializing in the interpretation of such data (Figure 3.10), users can plan, predict, and manage productivity and profits better than ever before. Companies such as VantagePoint Network often are information multipliers, which interpret data before delivering results to clients. Once trained, growers may be able to perform their own image analyses. An exciting area of new remote sensing research Figure 3.9. In the future, sensors may be mounted on tillage, involves the use of radar technology to collect site-sen- spray, or irrigation equipment to collect data for data maps while other operations are being carried out. sitive weather information. The resolution of such Photo courtesy of P. Westra, Colorado State University. multitemporal data is improved when radar output 86 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

New Weed Science frared reflectance. Because proximate sensors are Remote Sensing close to their targets, they often control site-specific Plant Biotechnology GPS/GIS; herbicide application equipment. In rare instances, Precision Farming weed control has been achieved by means of robots Current Weed Science (Lee, Slaughter, and Giles 1999). Mechanical Tillage Production Weed and Risk Crop Rotations Crop Field Management Zones Adoption by Cultural Practices Molecular Companies Competitive Cultivars Genetics Technologies such as remote sensing, GPS/GIS, Herbicides Biological Control yield monitors, and computer management applica- Allelopathy tions are changing the way growers look at crop production over a variable landscape (Fleming, Westfall, Site Specific Bioeconomic Models; Weed Management Decision Support Aids and Heermann 1999). Early site-specific crop management dealt with applications of fertilizer or lime, Figure 3.10. Many crop management disciplines will undergo whose rates were varied according to the results of soil radical change to adapt to new technologies’ pow- test samples taken on 2- to 4-a. grids in large fields erful effects on pest management and crop production. (Source: P. Westra, Colorado State University.) (Fleming et al. 1998). Interpolation of results from grid samples allowed applications to be prescribed at is compared with both optical satellite images and GIS distinct levels for different field areas. data. Although grid sampling remains popular with certain farmers, the cost of intensive sampling is prohibitive under many conditions. To decrease costs, re- In-Field Sensing searchers are evaluating a field-zone management Proximate sensing typically is performed by means approach based on grower knowledge of production of tractor-mounted equipment. Such a system is best fields coupled with soil color assessment incorporat- suited to stationary attributes, so its pest manage- ing aerial photography of fields. This combination of ment applications have tended to focus on weed rec- information may help users identify different manage- ognition. In-field weed recognition was first used to ment zones requiring minimal ground truth to maxi- guide site-specific spraying of general-purpose herbi- mize crop yields (Figure 3.11). cides such as glyphosate in unplanted fields. More Recent research has shown that production man- recent research has used image processing based on agement zones often are associated with soil type or leaf shape (Lee, Slaughter, and Giles 1999) and in- color (Fleming, Westfall, and Heermann 1999) and that black-and-white aerial photographs can be enhanced digitally to create contrasts based on soil col- or. Bare soil surface spectral properties were influenced largely by soil organic carbon and moisture. The grey-tone pattern in black-and-white aerial photographs might have been a reflection of these soil properties. Furthermore, soil color on photographic images might have correlated strongly with the soil’s organic matter spatial distribution, as determined by grid soil-sampling. The semivariograms from the two methods of determining soil organic matter were similar; and, of greater significance, soil organic matter was correlated highly with winter wheat yields. Thus it would seem that soil organic matter measured by means of remote sensing can be used to identify dif- Figure 3.11. This image represents a 140-acre irrigated pivot with ferent productivity zones within a field. crop management zones developed from aerial photography and soils testing (See also Figure 3.4). Colors represent the following crop production po- Spatial and Biological Strategies tentials: blue, high; green, medium; purple, low; and brown, very low. (Source: P. Westra, Colorado State Precision farming and management zones are im- University.) portant components of site-specific IPM, for pest pop- New and Emerging Technologies 87 ulations can correlate with other field attributes. In- applied to crops to improve nutrient availability, pest tegrating IPM with seed, fertility, and water manage- and disease control, herbicide resistance, and toler- ment will allow farmers to practice integrated, ance to environmental stresses such as heat, drought, sustainable agricultural production. New informa- and salinity. Biotechnology also is expected to pro- tion-acquisition tools make it possible to gather and vide solutions for conserving finite natural resources to analyze data regarding past, present, and future such as fertilizers and petroleum-based inputs; im- plant growing conditions at levels of detail and speeds proving food nutrition, taste, and texture; decreasing never before contemplated. Two areas for innovative the incidence of food allergies; and producing phar- IPM are emerging as a result. First, site-specific IPM maceuticals and nutraceuticals (i.e., foods with spe- uses spatial information to focus pest management cific health effects). where needed. Site-specific IPM integrates data col- An emerging public and private concern is the iden- lection technologies (field sampling and sensing), re- tity preservation of agricultural products possessing liable location data provided by satellite-based GPS, novel plant traits or characteristics. These products spatially referenced data management (GIS), and likely will need to be identified and segregated, start- automated spatial application technologies. Second, ing with planting, through harvesting, storing, pro- developmental stage-specific IPM uses crop and pest cessing, packaging, and distributing. This system al- biological information to predict when pest-control ready is in place for the producing and marketing of intervention is warranted (Swinton 1998). Typical- organic foods; expanding the system to include the ly, such information is embodied in computerized DSS major commodities corn, soybean, and wheat will re- models simulating pest-crop interactions. Certain quire significant investment in infrastructure, models simulate individual plant-pest relations, however. whereas others predict infestation conditions. These World Wide Web sources providing up-to-date de- models automate the threshold-based decision rules tails on new technologies, programs, and concepts in of classic IPM. IPM are proliferating. Sites providing growers access Pest scouting information typically is used to “seed” to current information about weather, pest outbreaks, models. Because scouting likely will be more inten- commodity prices, agricultural policy, and DSS mod- sive with site-specific IPM than with uniform pesti- els can only increase in importance. Examples of sites cide applications, scientists are studying pest distri- appear at the end of this chapter. bution patterns to identify cost-effective sampling plans and are characterizing relations between pest Transgenics and Resistance Management populations and other field attributes to develop less- expensive directed sampling plans (Heerman et al. Transgenic plant technology, which holds out the 1999). At the time of this writing, most pest manage- promise of precision genetics, exists to develop crop ment research remains at the stage of either pest spa- varieties that can be prescribed to mitigate specific tial distribution studies or cost-effective spatial data agricultural pressures such as those involving dis- collections. Although several simulation studies have ease, insects, soil moisture, soil quality, or weeds. indicated the feasibility of spatial pest management, Precision agriculture used in conjunction with cus- few field experiments have been conducted of weed tom-tailored varieties will provide growers with un- management (the most common application of site- precedented opportunities to boost revenues by pro- specific pest management), and virtually none of inducing for niche markets. sects, nematodes, or disease management (Swinton Transgenic varieties of many economically impor- 2003). tant plants have been produced. The commercial suc- Effective use of the models programmed with access of transgenic varieties of row crops including soy- curate pest and soil attribute data, together with site- bean, corn, cotton, and canola has been demonstrated specific IPM methods, permits growers to tailor pest since their respective releases, beginning in 1996 (Fig- controls. These technologies hold the promise of en- ure 3.12). Other transgenic crops such as potato, hancing IPM adoption in a variety of cropping systems squash, papaya, and tomato have been developed, but by integrating and automating certain complex deci- some, such as potato, are not being grown commer- sions regarding pest management. cially. These crops have received agronomic traits such as virus resistance, insect resistance, and herbicide tolerance. Since their first demonstration in a Agricultural Product Identity Preservation laboratory in 1983, transgenic crop varieties have Biotechnology and genetic engineering are being been adopted widely in the United States. 88 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

80 commercialized in several countries and have been Cotton adopted rapidly by farmers because of the economic Soybean Corn benefit and the time savings associated with the tech- 60 nology. Although released in the United States in the year 2000, Roundup Ready sugar beets have failed to gain commercial acceptance as a result of GMO mar- 40 ket concerns. Widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant crops may affect the agricultural system, and

rcentage of acreage wise management will be necessary to sustain their 20 Pe value (Hillyer 1999). The effects of the development of herbicide-resistant weeds or of the shifts to more- 50 difficult-to-manage weeds can be minimized if man- 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 agement methods involving crop rotation and herbi- Year cide mixtures are used to minimize those risks Figure 3.12. A dramatic increase in the extent of transgenic crop associated with the technology. planting in the United States has given rise to new Insect-tolerant crops have been developed through IPM technologies that decrease soil erosion and insecticide use. (Source: P. Westra, Colorado State genetic engineering, and those that have been com- University.) mercialized to date contain genes obtained from Ba- cillus thuringiensis (Bt). A wide variety of Bt proteins Yet transgenic plant technology is in its infancy. exists, and each protein has a specific spectrum of Currently, only single-gene agronomic traits have activity against specific classes of insects. Currently been commercialized. The new traits, introduced by on the market are insect-tolerant cotton and corn. means of Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer or Insect-tolerant crop varieties have demonstrated both particle bombardment-mediated gene transfer, have decreased need for pesticides and increased yields, been expressed stably over multiple generations since especially when grown in areas with great insect pres- the completion of a strenuous product development sure (Klotz-Ingram et al. 1999; Traxler and Falck- and breeder’s selection process. Introduced traits Zepeda 1999). As with herbicide-resistant crops, pre- behave as a single dominant gene and can be back- scription of management practices such as crop crossed easily into many elite varieties. refugia and crop rotation strategies must be followed Herbicide-resistant crops have been developed in to decrease the risks of insect resistance. which single genes (such as those encoded by pat or Crops that are herbicide and insect resistant have bar genes) produce proteins that deactivate herbicides the potential both to decrease the total amount of into nontoxic byproducts. Other modes of herbicide chemicals required to control pests and to provide (1) resistance are provided by single genes encoding for alternative mechanisms for controlling weed and in- enzymes that normally are the targets of herbicides. sect pests and (2) additional technologies that can be For example, the CP4 5-enolpyruvyl-3-shikimate incorporated easily into IPM systems. New genetic phosphate (EPSP) synthase gene encodes for a glypho- technologies such as chemical induction of resistance sate-insensitive EPSP synthase, and the ALS gene traits and of genes for drought or stress tolerance will encodes for a mutant acetolactate synthase gene in- provide other means of tailoring variety to the agri- sensitive to sulfonylurea herbicides (Duke 1996). cultural management systems as well as to the land Herbicide-resistant crops can provide growers with itself (Kendall et al. 1997). New traits will be pro- significant weed control and crop safety advantages duced not only by means of genetic engineering tech- as well as less expensive and easier-to-use weed man- niques, but also by means of discoveries generated by agement practices (Carpenter and Gianessi 1999; new techniques in plant genomics and bioinformat- Fulton and Keyowski 1999). When deciding whether ics. Genes for yield, disease resistance, and stress to use an herbicide-resistant crop variety, growers tolerance will be identified and moved by marker-as- often base decisions on the current cost of, and diffi- sisted breeding into elite varieties from wild crop rel- culty of, the weed control regime on their own farms. atives faster and more precisely than possible with Another consideration is the fit of herbicide resistance traditional plant-breeding techniques. New crop va- with conservation tillage or no-till agriculture. For rieties, crop management practices, and precision example, Roundup Ready soybean can make it easi- farming techniques developed in tandem will help er for a farmer to adopt no-till management systems. growers make the most of the productive potentials Roundup Ready soybean, corn, and cotton have been of land. New and Emerging Technologies 89

tion while protecting soil, air, and water resources— will determine whether an agricultural enterprise flourishes or perishes. Geospatial systems will provide a potential bridge among growers; crop consultants; seed and chemical salespeople; U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy, and university personnel; and private research groups. Such bridging benefits will affect education, usability, accessibility, and affordability. Decision support systems are computer-based models incorporating data and user knowledge inputs to assist crop production management decisions (Figure 3.13). Over the past 20 yr, DSS models typically have focused on one aspect of crop production over one or Figure 3.13. Pest management decision support systems will be more growing seasons. Examples of these models integrated into systems designed to help manage all include WeedSOFT, developed by researchers at the aspects of food and fiber production. (Source: P. University of Nebraska to help producers make weed Westra, Colorado State University.) management decisions while alerting them to environmental impact issues (Figure 3.14); and INTER- Integrated Systems COM, an ecophysiological model analyzing crop-weed interference and competition. More recently, DSSs An integrated, whole-farm, systems approach to ag- have evolved to incorporate several subcomponent ricultural research and management is needed great- models to help growers predict diversified crop or live- ly. Sustainable agriculture has become a complex stock production over several seasons. system demanding the consideration of many inter- GPFARM, a computer-based DSS providing fast related factors, processes, and institutions. Produc- and efficient crop and livestock management support ers must be able to respond to fluctuations in weath- at the whole-farm and ranch level, emphasizes the er and commodity prices, to trends in both federal and management of water, nutrients, and pesticides state legislation, and to perceptions entertained by the across a range of cropping, grazing, and integrated urban public. The ability to modify farm and ranch crop-livestock systems. GPFARM is targeted for use management practices wisely and rapidly—to take by agricultural consultants, computer-oriented pro- advantage of the global economy, new cropping, pest ducers, Extension personnel, and the National Re- management, and tillage systems, and new legisla- sources Conservation Service (Figure 3.15). GPFARM also has strong links to economic and environmental analysis, site database generation, and site-specific management from which alternative sustainable management strategies can be developed and tested for each farm or ranch. An information system with direct ties to the Internet provides help to users as they develop and test alternative systems. GPFARM can simulate crop growth; soil processes; management changes; fertilizer and pesticide application effects (including those of amendments such as manure and sewage sludge); soil productivity; wind and water erosion; nutrient and pesticide runoff; nitrate and pesticide leaching; and extensive cropping, tillage, and livestock systems. Farm-enterprise economic budgeting procedures are used to determine farm profitability in terms of net costs and returns. Variable costs for Figure 3.14. Integrated systems can contain components that each enterprise are calculated from the required pro- help growers manage fertility and pesticide inputs duction inputs, and a standard budget shows returns at levels protecting groundwater and the environment generally. (Source: P. Westra, Colorado State versus expenses. University.) Decision Support System for Agrotechnology 90 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Transfer (DSSAT) is a computer-based software pro- various production practices, evaluates alternative gram combining crop, soil, and weather databases management plans, and compares the effects on soil (and programs to manage them) with crop models and erosion, nitrate leaching, phosphorus runoff, pesticide application programs, for the purpose of simulating movement, and whole-farm profitability. multiyear outcomes of crop management strategies. In addition to improving prediction and manage- Integration of these multiple input variables allows ment capabilities, integrated systems management users to ask “what if” questions and to simulate re- and the accompanying software packages require sults. Currently, the DSSAT shell is able to incorpo- farmers to consider both the economic and the envi- rate models of 15 different crops, including several ronmental consequences of alternative production cereal grains, grain legumes, and root crops. PLAN- scenarios and help farmers to acquire a more thorough ETOR is a comprehensive environmental and econom- understanding of integrated systems and their eco- ic farm-planning software program. To evaluate the nomic and environmental effects. effects of decreasing or otherwise changing pesticide, nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or manure applications, tillage systems, and/or crop rotations, PLANETOR Appendix A. Abbreviations and combines site-specific environmental models with individual-farm financial planning data. Users en- Acronyms ter detailed data regarding crop production practices a. acre and rotations, production costs, levels, and variabili- Bt Bacillus thuringiensis ty, and farm financial transactions and status. Then DSS decision support system the software calculates the potential consequences of DSSAT decision support system for agrotechnology transfer GIS geographical information system GMO genetically modified organism GPS global positioning system IPM integrated pest management

Appendix B. Glossary Bioinformatics. Combining genetic and information technologies. Information multiplier. Companies that interpret data before delivering results to clients. Nutraceuticals. Foods with specific health effects. Precision farming. Site-specific agricultural management. Literature Cited

Bausch, W. C. 1995. Remote sensing of crop coefficients for improving the irrigation scheduling of corn. Ag Water Manage 27:55–68. Buchleiter, G. W., D. F. Heermann, and H. R. Duke. 1995. Irriga- tion scheduling with climactic data. In Proceedings of the Work- shop on Computer Applications in Water Management. CO WRRI Info Serv 79:61–65. Carpenter, J. and L. Gianessi. 1999. Herbicide tolerant soybeans: Why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. AgBio- Figure 3.15. Pest numbers generated from well-designed scout- Forum 2(2). Doesken, N. J., H. R. Duke, B. L. Hamblen, J. Kleist, T. B. McKee, ing activities often are used to "seed" decision sup- M. S. McMillan, and H. F. Schwartz. 1998. The Colorado agri- port systems. Increasingly, such pest population dynamic values are being collected remotely. cultural meteorological network (COAGMET): A unique collaborative system supporting Colorado agriculture. Pp. 240–242. (Source: P. Westra, Colorado State University.) New and Emerging Technologies 91

In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Conference on Agriculture Association, Toronto, July 26, 1997. and Forest Meteorology. American Meteorological Society, Al- Swinton, S. M. 2003. Site-specific pest management. Pp. 155-168. buquerque, New Mexico. In F. den Hond, P. Groenewegen, and N. van Straalen (eds.). Duke, S. (ed.). 1996. Herbicide-Resistant Crops. Agricultural, Pesticides: Problems, Improvements, and Alternatives. Oxford, Environmental, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Lewis Pub- Blackwell. lishers, New York. Traxler, G. and J. Falck-Zepeda. 1999. The distribution of bene- Duke, H. R., G. W. Buchleiter, D. F. Heermann, and J. A. Chap- fits from the introduction of transgenic cotton varieties. AgBio- man. 1997. Site specific management of water and chemicals Forum 2(2). with center pivot irrigation systems. Pp. 273–280. In J. V. Stafford (ed.). Precision Agriculture ‘97. BIOS, Oxford, United Kingdom. Related Web Sites Fleming, K. L., D. F. Heermann, D. G. Westfall, D. B. Bosley, F. B. Peairs, and P. Westra. 1998. Precision farming: From tech- Integrated Pest Management nology to decisions. A Case Study. Pp. 1777–1783. In P. C. Roberg, R. H. Rust, and W. E. Larson (eds.). Proceedings of the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. 2001. Bioin- Fourth International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Pre- tensive integrated pest management (IPM): Part one of two. cision Agriculture Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Fundamentals of sustainable agriculture, July, (30 May 2002) er developed management zone maps for variable rate fertiliz- Emerge, Incorporated. 2002. Homepage, er application. Pp. 917–926. In J. V. Stafford (ed.). Proceed- (30 May 2002) ings of the Second European Conference on Precision Gempler’s, Incorporated. 2000. IPM almanac, (30 May 2002) Fulton, J. and L. Keyowski. 1999. The production of herbicide- Jointed goatgrass initiative: Bioeconomic model for jointed resistant canola. AgBioForum 2(2). goatgrass research and management. 2002. (30 May 2002) protection. Crop Protect 12:403–411. National Science Foundation–Center for Integrated Pest Manage- Heerman, D. F., J. Hoeting, H. R. Duke, D. G. Westfall, G. W. ment. 2002. North Carolina pest management information, Buchleiter, P. Westra, F. B. Peairs, and K. L. Fleming. 1999. (30 May 2002) Interdisciplinary irrigated precision farming research. Pp. 121– U.S. Department of Agriculture–Cooperative State Research, Ed- 130. In J. V. Stafford (ed.). Proceedings of the Second Europe- ucation, and Extension Service. 2002. Plant and animal sys- an Conference on Precision Agriculture. Odense Congress Cen- tems, January 24, (30 May 2002) ter, Denmark, July 15. Hillyer, G. 1999. Biotechnology offers U.S. farmers promises and problems. AgBioForum 2(2). Site-Specific Management Kendall, H. W., R. Beachy, T. Eisner, F. Gould, R. Herdt, P. Raven, J. Schell, and M. Swaminathan. 1997. Bioengineering of crops. California Polytechnic State University. 2001. Precision agricul- Panel on Transgenic Crops, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. ture, December 14, (30 May 2002) Klotz-Ingram, C., S. Jans, J. Fernandez-Cornejo, and W. McBride. 1999. Dana, P. H. 2000. Global positioning system overview, May 1, Farm-level production effects related to the adoption of genetically (30 May 2002) Lee, W. S., D. C. Slaughter, and D. K. Giles. 1999. Robotic weed John Deer, Incorporated. 2002. Crop Tracer homepage, (30 May 2002) Meyer, G. E., T. Mehta, M. K. Kocher, D. A. Mortensen, and A. University of Georgia–National Environmentally Sound Produc- Samal. 1998. Textural imaging and discriminant analysis for tion Agriculture Laboratory. 2002. Homepage, (30 May 2002) 1197. Moran, M. S., Y. Inoue, and E. M. Barnes. 1997. Opportunities and limitations for image-based remote sensing in precision crop Biotechnology management. Remote Sens Environ 61:319–346. AgBioForum. 2002. Homepage, (30 May 2002) In S. S. Batie, D. E. Ervin, and M. A. Schulz (eds.). Business- Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Incorporated. 2002. Biotech issues Led Initiatives in Environmental Management: The Next Gen- update, (30 May eration of Policy? Workshop of the American Agricultural Eco- 2002) nomics Association/Association of Environmental and Resource Sciencemag. 2002. Homepage, (30 May 2002). 92 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

4 Crop Production Systems

Although systems research offers ongoing challeng- monoculture may cause significant root pathogen es (Merrigan 2000), noteworthy progress has been problems. Certain Brassica spp. such as rape and made in incorporating integrated pest management mustard release glucosinolates in the soil, and these (IPM) into most crop production systems (Fernandez- compounds and related decomposition products sup- Cornejo and Jans 1999). The concept of a cropping press the activity of numerous soilborne plant patho- system for pest management has been expanded to gens, especially nematodes. Crop rotations may be encompass many of the nontechnical tools described combined with other pest management practices to in Chapter 2. Antagonistic plants, trap crops, refu- develop economic-loss estimates and models. While gia, and cover crops are being used to enhance the working with a peanut-cotton and velvet-bean rota- activity of soilborne and foliage-inhabiting beneficials. tion (plus or minus pesticides), Taylor and Rodrigu- Shifts in the time of planting and/or harvesting and ez-Kábana (1999b) demonstrated the high cost of crop in the timing and patterns of necessary pesticide ap- pathogens relative to the economic return from ben- plications have proved effective in IPM programs. The eficials. In contrast to the yield losses caused by the planting of grass and other cover crops or fallows, as white mold disease and root-knot nematodes, num- well as other practices, are being incorporated into bers of the beneficial microbivorous nematodes were cropping systems to increase soil organic matter, to positively related to yield of peanut as well as cotton. suppress crop pests, to decrease tillage so as to pre- Decreased tillage is becoming a widely accepted serve existing organic matter, and to minimize ero- practice, largely for the purpose of soil conservation. sion (Barker and Koenning 1998; Magdoff and van Es Other benefits from decreased tillage include en- 2000). Many cropping systems that augment the ac- hanced soil organic matter, with improved surface tivity of beneficial soil microorganisms have been residue, soil structure, and water infiltration. Al- developed (Barker and Koenning 1998; El Titi and though causing soil compaction and altered pest prob- Ipach 1989; Taylor and Rodriguez-Kábana 1999a,b; lems, limited tillage favors earthworms and other Zwart et al. 1994). The evolving philosophy of both beneficial fauna such as bacterivorous and fungivo- IPM and the more recently proposed ecologically rous nematodes (Barker and Koenning 1998). Com- based pest management (EBPM) addresses the fact prehensive integrated management farming systems that significant levels of predation and/or parasitism that incorporate limited tillage, fertilization, and pes- are desirable insofar as they promote diversity and ticide use, add organic manure, and seed clover cover sustainability of agroecoystems (Cardina et al. 1999; crops were shown to cause a sixfold increase in num- Kennedy and Sutton 2000; NRC 1996). Thus, crop- ber of earthworms (El Titi and Ipach 1989). Predato- ping systems are beginning to address soil and crop ry mites and other beneficial microflora greatly in- health as well as specific pest management goals. creased in integrated plots while cereal cyst and stem Rotating certain crops that include nonhosts for nematodes were suppressed. Until recently, weed given crop pests is a practice that has been used for management concerned primarily the control of one centuries in subsistence and traditional agricultural or more weeds by means of a single technology systems. For example, six- to eight-year rotations and (Elmore 1996; Liebman, Mohler, and Staver 2001). To fallow have long been used to avoid the low potato limit herbicide application costs and adverse environ- yields associated with the potato cyst nematode (Bark- mental effects, multiple tactics, or “tools,” such as crop er and Koenning 1998). Crop rotation supports diver- rotation, mechanical control, and crop competition are sity in time and space and often is the favored means recommended (Liebman and Gallandt 1997). of managing soil-inhabiting pests such as nematodes. Extensive effort has been directed at characteriz- Still, the need to rotate depends on primary crop, lo- ing and modeling the many interactions of crop and cation, and key pests. Corn may be grown success- pest systems. Many vegetable and fruit crop models fully in monoculture in certain regions, but elsewhere focus on one or on a few pests within a similar taxo-

92 Crop Production Systems 93 nomic group. Crop simulation models have been de- Veseth). A recent issue of the Journal of Crop Pro- veloped for certain crops, but few of these models are duction was dedicated to “expanding the context of comprehensive. For example, the CROPGRO–soy- weed management” (Buhler 1999), as was the recent bean simulation model has been used in the evalua- book Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds tion of various risks, including those related to water (Liebman, Mohler, and Staver 2001). Many publica- use (Alagarswamy et al. 2000) and associated pests. tions on pest and crop management framed in ecolog- The goal of fully integrating key soybean pests in this ical and environmental terms are forthcoming in the system has not been reached yet. Statistical models next few years. Current general use patterns of bio- have promise for predicting corn and soybean yields logical, cultural, pesticide, and monitoring practices in given soils in Illinois (Garcia-Paredes, Olson, and in field crops are summarized in Table 4.1. Lang 2000). The erosion productivity impact calculator model shows promise for exploring the influence of rotation type (shallow vs. deep-rooted crops) and Field Crops irrigation type on nitrogen leaching (Cavero et al. 1999). Although challenges related to an overall sys- Field, including forage, crops generally are low- tems approach (including crop pests) remain, an in- value crops/unit production area. To earn a reason- tegrated assessment model (Bland 1999) also has able profit, commercial producers must grow corn, promise. At a practical as well as at a general re- soybean, small grains, cotton, and forage crops on search level, the cropping systems approach has been large acreages. Producers’ main interest is annual used successfully for numerous crops (Veseth 1995). profit margin (Posner, Casler, and Baldock 1995), but In considerations of variable costs and input usage, they also are interested both in the effects of produc- improved climate forecasts may have value in this tion strategies on the environment and in the results regard (Mjelde and Hill 1999). For example, Main and of decreased-input systems. colleagues (2001) have created climate-based mod- A tendency has existed to develop management els for predicting development and spread of crop fo- strategies necessary to achieve economic and social liage pathogens. Ongoing, long-term research pro- goals without linking these strategies to biological grams being conducted at major centers for integrated factors and without investigating their interactions crop and plant systems, such as the center at Michi- (Ghersa et al. 1994). But the cropping system on an gan State University, also have much promise (see individual farm is complex and becomes even more so Center for Integrated Plant Systems 2002). as additional regional effects on pests are considered This chapter illustrates effective pest management (Cardina et al. 1999). In the design of an effective systems by presenting in each section concepts and sustainable cropping system, all relevant agronomic, examples of production systems for selected major biologic, ecologic (ideally on a regional basis), and eco- crops. Pest management strategies (the overall plan) nomic factors are addressed. Specific factors such as and tactics (the specific tools) may differ for crops in crop production options depend on the region. Some different geographic regions of the United States. areas produce mainly small grains; others produce a Fortunately, this information is available readily in more complex mix of crops, including corn and soy- published form and on the Internet (English-Loeb bean rotations; others may be forage-based; and still 1999; Gray 2001; Van Kirk 1998). National web sites others may produce a mix of alternative land use sys- also are available on IPM generally (e.g., Consortium tems, from forestry to intensive cropping. A major for Integrated Crop Protection 2002; USDA–CSREES potential constraint in any cropping system is pests, 2002), on entomology (e.g., Fan 1998), and on crops including weeds, arthropods, pathogens, and verte- (e.g., Bajwa 2000) that provide invaluable informa- brates. Pests associated with field crops have unique tion. Descriptions of pest groups and their manage- behavioral characteristics due in part to the large ment also are available by crop, for most states. For areas planted to these crops. Long-distance pest dis- example, the American Phytopathological Society persal often is enhanced because the host is available published a series of plant disease compendia for readily. But to maximize agroecosystem health, crop many field, fruit, vegetable, and ornamental crops. and pest management efforts must extend beyond a For soybean, cotton, and corn diseases, see Hartman, focus on pests, despite their importance. A multitude Sinclair, and Rupe (1999); Watkins (1981); and White of biotic factors are involved in achieving a level of (1999). Additionally, a number of books published biodiversity that will help fill the ecological niches so specifically on crop health are very useful (e.g., Wheat essential to minimizing pest and nutritional Health Management [1991], by R. J. Cook and R. problems. 94 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 4.1. Pest management practices, field crops, 1996 (Fernandez-Cornejo and Jans, 1999)

Fall Winter Spring Durum Item Corn Soybean Cotton potato wheat wheat wheat

Percentage of planted acres

Biological techniques Considered beneficial insects in selected pesticides 8 5 52 29 10 4 12 Purchased and released beneficial insects * * * 0 * * 0 Used pheromone lures to control pests na * 7 2 * 1 0 Used Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)1 2.4 1.6 4.1 * * 0 0

Cultural techniques Adjusted planting or harvesting dates2 5 6 25 7 19 11 13 Used mechanical cultivation for weed control 51 29 89 86 na na na Used a no-till system 19 33 na na 3 4 7 Crop rotations3 Continuous4 18 11 67 2 425 14 10 Rotation with other row crops6 547 638 15 2 2 2 0 Other9 28 26 18 9610 5611 8312 9013

Pesticide efficiency Alternated pesticides to control pest resistance 31 28 41 69 13 38 32

Monitoring Used pheromone lures to monitor pests14 1 * 33 3 * 4 1 Used soil biological testing to detect pests such as insects, diseases, or nematodes 2 3 9 46 2 0 0

*Less than 0.5%. na = not available or not applicable. 1Percentage of insecticide-treated acres for Bt.

2Adjust planting dates only for corn.

3Crop rotations include 3 years: 1994, 1995, and 1996. Column crop heading indicates the crop planted in 1996. 4The same crop was planted in 1994, 1995, and 1996.

5Continuous same crop for winter wheat occurred in 1995 and 1996, for winter wheat planted in fall 1994 and for winter wheat planted in fall 1995. 6A crop sequence, excluding continuous same crop, where only row crops (corn, soybean, sorghum, cotton, and peanut) were planted for three consecutive years.

749% of corn planted acres was in rotation with soybean. 856% of soybean planted acres was in rotation with corn.

9Other excludes continuous same crop and rotation with row crops, and includes fallow or idle.

10 26% of potato planted acres was fallow in 1994 and 1995, and 70% was in rotation with other crops or fallow in 1994 or 1995. 11 40% of winter-wheat planted acres was fallow in fall 1994 and had winter wheat planted in fall 1995.

12 23% of spring-wheat planted acres was fallow in 1994 and had spring wheat in 1995, and 60% was in rotation with other crops or fallow in 1994 or 1995. 13 24% of durum-wheat planted acres was fallow in 1994 and had durum wheat in 1995, and 66% was in rotation with other crops or fallow in 1994 or 1995

14 For corn, pheromone lures were used to monitor black cutworm. Crop Production Systems 95

Because agroecosystems are a complex of nested an assessment to determine the costs/benefits of their subsystems (Swanton and Murphy 1996), the great- management. Because field crops typically are pro- est potential for anticipating pest and pathogen prob- duced on large acreages, it is prudent to assess over- lems may arise if the system is viewed as a series of all damage potential before taking corrective action. tightly linked food-based interactions (Bawden 1991). Some key pests of selected major field crops (corn, This ideal has yet to be achieved for field or forage cotton, soybean) are discussed in this chapter. As crops, partly because of the ease of using one tool for discussed in the introduction to this chapter, compre- targeting single pests and partly because of the lim- hensive lists of state and regional pests are available ited options for pest management in these crops. The for certain crops. practicality of IPM inputs also is limited by the relatively low value of crops and the large areas in which they are grown. Weeds Large cropping systems are ideal contexts in which Because of the wide range of weeds commonly af- to monitor systems to predict pest occurrences at or fecting numerous field crops, treatment of this pest above an established threshold. Monitoring involves group is limited here to a general discussion. The nutritional assessments as well as pest assays. New importance of weeds is reflected by the annual expen- technologies improving the efficiency and accuracy of diture of $6 billion on herbicides in the United States, these processes are being developed (see Chapter 3), and estimated crop losses to these pests still amount and growers will continue to enjoy increasing access to $4 billion/year (yr) (Liebman 2001). Specific infor- to the ever-expanding information base. mation about often-changing weed pests (Webster and The information and technology available should Coble 1997) and their management for given crops enable growers to better integrate into a system all within a state or region, or even globally, is available aspects of crop and pest management. The most im- readily in crop production guides (Edmisten 1999; portant step in using resources efficiently is to obtain Heiniger 1999; Madden 1992) and on the Internet site-specific information about soil nutrients and pests (Bajwa 2000; Gray 2001; VanKirk 1998). Because (MacRae 1998). Digital tools such as global position- they compete for space, light, water, and plant nutri- ing systems (GPS) and geographic information sys- ents, weeds can have a significant economic effect tems (GIS) allow for precise mapping of fields (see (Bridges 1994; Renner, Swinton, and Kells 1999) on Chapter 3). These maps, along with yield monitors, field and forage crops. Herbicides have been the dom- have been key components in precision agriculture, inant tool for managing them (Buhler 1999), but her- the basis of which is the application of pesticides (Mac- bicide options differ among crops. The most basic level Rae 1998) and other inputs on a site-specific basis, of weed management involves herbicide use and/or and only as needed. cultivation (Elmore 1996). This approach emphasiz- The steps for achieving IPM in field crops are sim- es killing weeds. The aesthetic value of weed-free ilar to those for achieving IPM in other cropping sys- fields has been an important issue for growers. De- tems, steps that are outlined in numerous easily ac- spite the availability of more than 100 herbicides and cessed sources, both in print and on the Internet the use of herbicide for some 40 yr, weeds frequently (MacRae 1996). Key components of IPM are monitor- are perceived as more of a problem now than they ing and identifying pests and pathogens. Because were when herbicides first became available (Webster basic information is useful in the formulation of man- and Coble 1997). Nevertheless, the advent of geneti- agement strategies, it always is helpful to know the cally engineered herbicide tolerance in soybean, cot- life cycle or life history of organisms, as well as the ton, and corn, as well as of precision agriculture, is epidemiologies of diseases and the ecologies of key changing the philosophies and approaches to weed pests. Management strategies need to take into ac- management (see Chapters 2 and 3). count related costs, economic returns, and all-system Although the single-tactic approach has yielded effects. Finally, detailed records of inputs, observa- short-term benefits, long-term benefits are more likely tions, and yields are needed to optimize crop manage- with a multitactic approach. Integrating multiple ment programs. biological, mechanical, and chemical agents enhanc- Many pests and pathogens occur on a specific crop es the decline in seedbanks and in weed populations within a cropping system, but usually only a few pests (Cardina et al. 1999). Field mapping and site-specif- create substantial problems at any given time. The ic technologies are relatively recent approaches to decision to manage pests occurring in a specific crop weed management. For example, the goals of preci- within a cropping system should be made only after sion herbicide applicators are to detect the weed, to 96 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies select an appropriate control, and to apply the prop- imately 78% of field corn is grown in the northcentral er rate, on a site-specific basis (Sudduth, Hummel, United States (Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, and Birrell 1997; see also Chapter 3). Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wiscon- An increased emphasis on weed biology and weed sin, a.k.a. the Corn Belt) (Pedigo 1999). ecology research over the past ten years has generat- A large complex of insects, pathogens, weed species, ed new insights into the genetic complexity of weeds, and vertebrates affects corn yield. Wild turkey and the practical effects of weed seed dormancy, the in- deer consume significant quantities of corn and cause fluence of altered production systems (e.g., decreased additional losses by knocking down plants that, in tillage) on weed population dynamics, and the com- consequence, cannot be combine harvested. petitive abilities of different weeds as they affect both All told, insects probably cause more damage to dryland and irrigated crops (Dunan, Westra, and corn than any other pest group does. More than 30 Moore 1998; Schweizer, Westra, and Lybecker 1998; species or species groups of insects cause economic VanGessel, Schroeder, and Westra 1998; VanGessel damage. Some of the most significant problems oc- et al. 1995a,b,c; VanGessel et al. 1998). Such infor- cur in field corn grown continuously on the same land. mation is being incorporated into complex weed bio- In the Corn Belt, that practice gives rise to problems economic models that simulate weed effects and fa- from a key beetle complex comprising the northern cilitate related recommendations for weed control corn rootworm (Diabrotica barberi) and the western (Dunan, Westra, and Moore 1994; Dunan et al. 1996; corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera). Another key Lindquist et al. 1996; Schweizer, Westra, and Lybeck- pest is the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), er 1994, 1998; Schweizer et al. 1994; VanGessel et al. which damages field corn grown continuously or in 1995c). Future remote weed-sensing data may feed rotation with other host crops. Together, these spe- directly into such decision support systems to provide cies account for most of the insecticide use in field corn growers with site-specific weed management options in the Corn Belt and contribute to corn’s ranking as (Berti et al. 1996; Lindquist et al. 1996). Increasing the U.S. crop receiving the most insecticidal treat- the reliance on herbicide-resistant crops has raised ment (Pedigo 1999). the issue of whether such technology will result in a Corn is injured as a result of being chewed by in- weed shift to populations more tolerant of certain sect larvae and by their tunneling inside roots. Root- herbicides. damaged plants lodge during rain and windstorms As has been noted, agroecosystems are complex, (Pedigo 1999). Lodged plants lose yield because of with each component of the system often affecting all modified architecture (goose-necking), and subse- other components. Weed management should evolve quent losses occur as a result of harvest difficulties. and become integrated with the total crop production The European corn borer, a species introduced into system, which has physical, chemical, and biological the United States more than 70 yr ago, is probably components. Weed populations emerging within the most important pest in the corn-growing regions. fields manifest disturbances caused by production Different genetic strains, or ecotypes, produce differ- practices. As summarized in Table 4.1, cultural prac- ent numbers of generations; for instance, corn borers tices can be central to integrated weed management. in Canada and northern Minnesota produce one gen- Bioeconomic weed management models such as eration, and borers in Georgia produce four genera- “WEEDSIM” are proving invaluable in evaluating tions. Two or three are common in the Corn Belt. The weed-management practices (Renner, Swinton, and tunneling of larvae through the vascular system caus- Kells 1999). As emphasized in a recent book by Lieb- es primary damage. Second-generation larvae cause man, Mohler, and Staver (2001), ecology-based weed subsequent damage as they tunnel in stalks and ear management has great potential, but much basic in- shanks. Ear shank tunneling causes ears to drop formation still must be gathered before this approach (Pedigo 1999). can be implemented widely. The key element of management design for corn rootworms and the European corn borer is prevention, which begins in most regions with a plan of crop ro- Corn Insects and Pathogens tation to eliminate losses from the corn-rootworm Corn is the major cash-grain crop grown in the complex. This plan would include alternating rota- United States; it is produced for silage, grain, seed, tions with soybean or other nonhost crops such as and fresh-market produce. Of these products, field oats, annually or on a three-year plan. The three-year corn (corn grown for feed grain) occupies most of the plan is necessary in areas where extended diapause total acreage (more than 65 million acres [a.]); approx- of northern corn rootworms or of soybean-laying Crop Production Systems 97 strains of western corn rootworm occurs (Pedigo Country elevators in high-volume grain production 1999). Incorporation of a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)- areas should use sampling and analysis techniques toxin gene greatly enhances the control of these im- compatible with handling constraints. Related deci- portant insects, but the issue of long-term use of the sions must be based on risk probabilities. Operators’ technology must be resolved. legal options for handling grain must be flexible Eventually, such a preventive program would elim- enough to accommodate variabilities in sampling, inate completely the need for insecticides in corn. But testing, and lot-to-lot aflatoxin level. Currently, the when outbreaks occur, occasional therapeutic treat- accurate identification of all contaminated lots poses ments are required for second-generation corn borers a major challenge. and for pests such as the black cutworm (Agrotis ip- silon). The therapeutic program relies on early detection, a process refined especially for second-gener- Cotton Insects and Pathogens ation corn borers (Pedigo 1999). Although computer Insects and pathogens severely limit cotton produc- models are available to aid decision making by insect tion in the United States. Yield losses probably ex- managers, comprehensive information about the life ceed 20% annually from damage due to these two pest systems of given insect pests and about the related groups. Seedling diseases and nematodes usually are effects of cropping systems is necessary for effective severe in all cotton production regions. Fusarium wilt IPM (Kennedy and Storer 2000). These systems may occurs in many production areas, and boll rots also aid growers in making decisions based on cost-bene- are important. From planting until harvest, cotton fit analyses (see Chapter 12). is attacked by insects, with nearly 100 species being Corn is susceptible to a number of plant diseases recorded as pests. The pink boll worm (Pectinophora that limit crop yield and quality (White 1999). Dis- gossybiella) and plant bugs (Lygus sp.) are the key eases generally are subtle and go unnoticed, howev- insect pests of cotton in the western United States, er. Host resistance to certain major diseases has min- whereas the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis gran- imized their effects. dis) and certain plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae) dom- Aflatoxin is a problem in corn during years when inate in Texas and the midsouth. As a result of the there are droughts and when other weather conditions areawide eradication program covering much of the favor the causal fungus (CAST 2003; Iowa Grain Southeast and West, the boll weevil nearly has been Quality Initiative 2002). Although aflatoxin is a eradicated (see Myers, Savoie, and van Randen 1998). chronic problem in southeastern states, effects on the In most areas, repeated insecticide application has corn market are much more pronounced when mid- caused replacement of formerly economically impor- western corn is affected. In 1988, the nine Corn Belt tant pests with other species. For example, the corn states produced 3.8 billion bushels of corn, or 78% of earworm (Helicoverpa zea) and tobacco budworm (He- total U.S. production (Iowa Crop and Livestock 2000). liothis virescens) have come to assume major pest sta- Aflatoxin in these areas obviously limits the availabil- tus in most areas where host crops are grown (Pedi- ity of clean stocks for export or for sensitive domestic go 1999). Declining profits, resulting from programs food uses. A major problem with aflatoxin is that corn of heavy insecticide use, have contributed greatly to is delivered to the point of sale rapidly whereas afla- changes in cotton-pest technologies. Although high toxin is detected slowly. Thus, large quantities of corn yields can be maintained in long-season cotton, great- with undetected toxins may be marketed. Although er production costs significantly decrease profits. extreme temperatures (daytime highs and nighttime The insect management program for cotton produc- lows) and lack of rain are necessary conditions for tion in southern Texas, a program exemplifying ad- creation of the crop stress favoring aflatoxin develop- vanced IPM strategies, is based on preventive tactics ment, average weather conditions for a state or geo- aimed at boll weevils. The basic tactic is early plant- graphic area are ineffective means of predicting afla- ing of short-season cotton cultivars, moderate fertil- toxin levels. Meaningful predictions depend on izer use, and appropriately timed irrigation. Addition- knowledge of localized weather data and of compound- ally, because plant thinning is delayed or avoided, ing agronomic factors (CAST 2003). vegetative growth is suppressed and early fruiting Although aflatoxin contamination occurs fairly fre- stimulated. Thus the season of production and the quently in the production of southeastern U.S. corn period during which cotton is vulnerable to attack are (the Corn Belt corn is affected only in weather- shortened. Other important preventive tactics of the stressed years), the southeastern states contribute program include early harvest and stalk destruction. only a small percentage of total U.S. corn production. In some operations, defoliant use, after which stalks 98 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies are cut and shredded, facilitates early harvest. These of SCN, many growers still do not recognize it as a late-season tactics prevent further weevil reproduc- problem. In soils with a potential for high levels of tion and weaken or starve weevils entering hiberna- production, the nematode can cause a 30 to 40% loss tion; as a consequence, hibernating populations suf- without causing significant foliar symptoms. Because fer higher than normal mortalities. this pest can predispose soybean to other pests, in- Such preventive tactics are supplemented by scout- cluding weeds and insects, managing it in the context ing, or pest surveillance, and by therapeutic treat- of a total cropping system is crucial (Alston et al. 1991, ments of organophosphate insecticides against boll 1993). In contrast to SCN, which causes major loss- weevil and cotton fleahopper (Pseudatomoscelis seria- es annually, many of the more than 100 pathogens tus). Additionally, pyrethroids, among other insecti- affecting soybean are problems in specific regions and cides, are applied when cotton bollworm and cotton cause various degrees of damage from one season to budworm outbreaks occur. During application, nat- the next (Hartman, Sinclair, and Rupe 1999). ural-enemy conservation is practiced by means of Insect, like pathogen, problems usually were un- close reliance on economic thresholds, use of lowest important for early soybean growers. Today, howev- possible application rates, and, when possible, treat- er, growers often experience significant losses from ment of “hot spots” in a field. Use of insecticides insect pests. Thus, insects, pathogens, and weeds against the bollworm/budworm complex is expected must be included in crop management IPM programs. to diminish, however, as transgenic cotton cultivars For the insect portion of an IPM program, plant expressing Bt toxin are planted and grown. In addi- growth stage is the most important criterion because tion to conventional means of decision making in cot- the relation between insect injury and crop damage ton pest management, computer programs also are depends on the stage during which injury occurs. As available. One such program is TEXCIM, a user- for foliar pathogens, spray schedules are based on friendly software package designed to forecast costs plant growth stage. Injury from foliar pathogens and of pests, benefits of management tactics, and value insects is usually not as detrimental to the soybean of crops. plant during the vegetative as during the reproduc- In an international context, most cotton diseases tive stage. Because soybean response to insects de- are regional in importance (Watkins 1981); for exam- pends on plant growth stage, economic thresholds for ple, in alkaline soils, Phymatotrichum is always a insect management depend on it as well. Growers and threat in the southwestern United States and Mexi- IPM practitioners therefore must recognize the crop co. The Columbia lance nematode is important in the development stage. southeastern United States. In contrast, seedling Major insect fauna associated with soybean fre- disease complexes are omnipresent in cotton produc- quently are grouped according to injury type. Types tion fields. Thus, growers need to be prepared to include defoliators, pod feeders, stem feeders, and manage seed and seedling disease and, in addition, girdlers. Insect problems in the United States gen- at least one other type of regional disease. It is es- erally follow a south-to-north line of severity. Insect sential for growers and crop advisors to recognize pressure is the greatest in the southern states, with which diseases are common and to prepare to man- less pressure in the middle regions of the country; age them as part of the cropping system. pressures generally are much less severe in the north central states (Hammond et al. 1991). Although economically important insect problems were quite rare Soybean Insects and Pathogens in the northern states during the 1970s, they have Over the past 40 to 50 yr, soybean production has become more frequent since the 1980s. For example, been constrained by pests whose numbers have been Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna varivestis Mulsant) increasing with the intensification of cropping. The caused noteworthy damage in the eastern regions of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) (SCN) the Midwest during the 1980s; and bean leaf beetles has emerged as one of the most important pests of (Cerotoma trifurcata [Forster]) became a problem soybean. Other pests occur and can cause severe dam- throughout the Midwest in the later 1980s and the age locally; many others are associated with soybean early 1990s (Pedigo 1999). but cause little or no loss in most production regions. For all pest groups, the trend is toward preventive The SCN is causing billions of dollars of loss an- tactics such as the use of cover crops, trap crops, and nually wherever soybean is grown throughout the resistant cultivars. The IPM philosophy probably is world (Wrather et al. 1995; numerous web sites, in- more advanced in soybean than in other crops. Nev- cluding Hammond 1996). But despite the importance ertheless, many recommendations for a given pest Crop Production Systems 99 remain to be integrated with those for other pest types time in July 2000. Its distribution continues to expand and production systems. and now includes multiple states in the Northcentral region, southern Ontario, and even western New York state. Concerns for the Future Integrated pest management theory for field crops is well developed, but progress in application, and Vegetable Crops especially in integration into full cropping systems, has lagged (Merrigan 2000). Most IPM integration Vegetable crops and potatoes represent a major has been within given pest disciplines. Although portion of the diet of most people and serve as impor- much progress has been made toward reaching the tant sources of vitamins, minerals, and fiber. The goals of the national IPM initiative established by the more than 40 vegetable crops grown in the United Clinton Administration (Fernandez-Cornejo and Jans States also are important components of the agricul- 1999), the goal of certifying as IPM 75% of U.S. acre- tural economy. During 1998, the 25 principal vege- age in agricultural production has not been achieved tables grown in the United States (on 1.9 million a.) (Merrigan 2000). yielded 423 million hundredweight (cwt) and were Merely thinking in terms of IPM practices will not valued at $8.1 billion. The 10 principal vegetables result in the important advances needed to sustain a grown for processing (on 1.5 million a.) yielded 15.5 production system that must provide food for the million ton (t) and were valued at $1.3 billion. Addi- world’s rapidly growing human population, which now tionally, potato growers produced (on 1.4 million a.) exceeds 6 billion. Countless factors in an ecosystem 477 million cwt of tubers, which were valued at $2.5 interact, affecting diversity of plant species and as- billion. Although clearly having the potential to profit sociated populations of pests and beneficial organ- from vegetable production, growers also typically isms. Moreover, both disturbed and natural ecosys- must make a significant investment and bear a great tems are confronted with an ever-increasing number deal of production risk. Costs associated with seed, of invasive species, and the genetic basis of crops used fertilizer, pesticides, farm equipment, and labor have today is very narrow and vulnerable to pest attack and been increasing at a steady pace while on-farm val- environmental stress (see Chapters 5, 6, and 7). To ues of vegetable crops to growers have remained com- overcome these difficulties, IPM actions should be paratively flat. To illustrate the magnitude of risk based on systems science and on whole-system man- associated with production, the growing of long-sea- agement rather than on individual pests or other sin- son russet-skinned potatoes now costs $1,800 to gle inputs (Merrigan 2000). The approach also must $2,000/a., and the crop must be protected from pest contribute to development of a cropping system des- problems requiring a wide range of management tined to maximize the resource utilization by crops strategies. while minimizing the adverse effects of pests and Vegetables are grown throughout the United pathogens. States in a range of soils and environments, by means New and emerging technologies in pest manage- of a broad spectrum of management systems. For ment and crop production should give rise to increas- vegetable growers to succeed in today’s competitive ingly efficient and sustainable systems (see Chapters marketplace, they must produce high yields of foods 3 and 12). The goal of IPM must be more comprehen- free of damage from insects, pathogens, weeds, and sive than simply eliminating or suppressing one or other crop pests, as well as pesticide residues. Pest more target pests, however. The goals of protecting management often requires intensive, season-long field crops from pests (including habitat management management using many different tools and tech- generally [Landis, Wratten, Gurr 2000]) and of aug- niques. Consumers have grown to expect safe, afford- menting biodiversity as a key IPM component should able, blemish-free, high-quality vegetables year- be revisited (Altieri 1994). The IPM decision making round. At times, artificially high expectations and process, including the process of receiving inputs from grading standards for fresh and processed vegetables industry (Carroll 2000), should be improved by in- lead to increased pesticide usage. creased use of interactive simulation modeling and by Many approaches to pest management are avail- the development and use of predictive systems. An able for vegetable crops. The spectrum includes strict additional, ongoing issue is that of invasive pests. For organic production, whereby nonchemical inputs con- example, the soybean aphid (Aphis glycines), native form to organic standards and requirements; biolog- to Asia, was detected in the United States for the first ically based approaches, which occasionally use chem- 100 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Textbox 4.1. New vegetable varieties resist diseases: Multiple disease resistance benefits growers and consumers (Source: M. Haining Cowles, Cornell University 1999)

Resistant squash. A summer squash called ‘Whitaker’ ‘Whitaker’s’ resistance to other squashes. received much media attention last year, along with the Resistant broccoli and cabbage. An effort similar man responsible for its successful breeding: Cornell to Robinson’s is under way in the laboratory of Cornell’s University horticulturalist Richard Robinson. This work Elizabeth Earle, who is using a cell-culture procedure of 10 years’ duration, accomplished with the assistance of called protoplast fusion to transfer disease resistance into plant pathologists R. Provvidenti and H. M. Munger and crucifer vegetables from other species. Following the research support specialists Joe Shail, has been supported initial fusion experiments, she began working with Cornell in part by an IPM grant. horticulturalist Mike Dickson to produce resistant, Why is ‘Whitaker’ such big news? Multiple resistance marketable-quality broccoli and cabbage. The researchers is the answer. ‘Whitaker’ is resistant to four significant now have broccoli lines resistant to either blackrot or diseases—three viral and one fungal. No other squash can Alternaria leaf spot, and certain broccoli/cabbage crosses resist this many diseases. Multiple resistance means resistant to both. Six of the eighteen broccoli lines tested decreased use of pesticides, control of diseases never before in 1998 showed good resistance to blackrot. Earle stated adequately controlled, and improved quality, higher yield, that this was an increase in percentage of resistance over and longer storage life of the plant. Resistance to a single earlier generations and could mean that resistance is disease is not nearly as significant; a squash that resists becoming uniform in these strains. one disease can be lost to another pathogen. Blackrot is a bacterial disease causing leaves to become Robinson continued refining ‘Whitaker’ this year by discolored and brittle. When weather conditions favor its attempting to add resistance to one more disease and to development, blackrot causes stunting, wilting, and even the cucumber beetle. He was assisted in this effort by plant death. Alternaria leaf spot is a fungal disease appearing Mike Hoffman of Cornell University’s Department of as dark spots sometimes covered with a black mold. This Entomology. Robinson also worked on transferring disease can render whole heads of cabbage worthless. ical inputs, when needed, to decrease pest populations of the different techniques available to growers for below economic injury levels; and management ap- managing plant pests, an array of IPM programs con- proaches using one or more chemical inputs in re- tinues to be developed to solve specific needs. sponse to changes in pest pressures and environmen- Certain IPM programs, such as the planting of tal conditions. Current IPM programs are helping pest-resistant vegetable varieties, are straightforward growers limit losses due to pest pressure; to increase and require few components for successful implemen- biological inputs; and, wherever possible, to decrease tation (see Textbox 4.1 on fungal and viral-resistant pesticide inputs. Because of differences in pest pres- squash varieties, and broccoli and cabbage varieties sures from one state or region to another, and because resistant to blackrot and/or Alternaria leafspot; and

Figure 4.1. Field scouting of sweet corn for plant diseases and Figure 4.2. Scouting for insects and plant diseases. Photo cour- insects. Photo courtesy of J. Gibbons, New York tesy of J. A. Wyman, University of Wisconsin. State IPM Program, Cornell University. Crop Production Systems 101

Textbox 4.2. Screening vegetable varieties for disease resistance (Source: W. Stevenson, University of WisconsinÐMadison 1999)

Potato and carrot are two crops requiring relatively lost in the selection process. high levels of management that are commonly sprayed Several years ago, field trials were developed in with fungicide several times during the growing season to Wisconsin for screening cultivars and breeding lines of protect against the fungi causing foliar blights. Early blight both potato and carrot for field resistance to foliar diseases. (Alternaria solani) and late blight (Phytophthora infestans) Each year, more than 100 potato- and 50 carrot-plot entries can defoliate potato vines in the field, thus decreasing in unsprayed field trials were evaluated weekly for yield and yield quality. These fungi also can infect potato susceptibility to common foliar diseases. Information tubers, thus leading to loss of quality and storability. provided to breeders has proved helpful in their efforts to Carrots are susceptible to other plant pathogenic fungi develop cultivars with high levels of resistance to these (Alternaria and Cercospora leaf blights) that progressively diseases. Carrot growers are beginning to use this same defoliate plants and lead to harvesting difficulties and to information to block plantings according to disease decreased yield and root quality. Fungicides are the primary susceptibility and thereby shrink fungicide spray programs method employed by growers for management of such to maximize the value of this resistance. Although breeding diseases. potato cultivars with multiple disease will require more In breeding trials, yield potential and quality time, breeders are making important progress in developing performance criteria often take precedence over disease commercially acceptable lines with disease resistance to resistance. To allow them to express their full potentials, both early blight and late blight. The goal is to develop breeding lines often are routinely treated with fungicides. cultivars requiring substantially less or no fungicide inputs Because of the intensive management practices used in for disease management. Breeders are getting closer to these trials, differences in disease susceptibility may be realizing this goal.

Textbox 4.2 on fungal-resistant potato and carrot va- scouting of fields form the basis for many successful rieties) or intensive field scouting (see Textbox 4.3 on IPM programs (see Textbox 4.4 on cabbage weed scouting for carrot leaf blights; see also Figures 4.1 management, and Textbox 4.5 on cover cropping on to 4.4). Computer-based information about diagnos- onion fields). Weather data play an important role tics is valuable material for identifying important pest in many IPM programs dedicated to the monitoring problems before they have caused economic losses (see and the forecasting of insect and disease problems. Figure 4.5 on the University of California [UC]–IPM The World Wide Web now is used to disseminate cru- Program Pest Management Guidelines for Barn- cial environmental data for incorporation into exist- yardgrass). Combined with crop rotation, careful field ing models in end-user computers or for immediate selection, cover crops, and tillage, the planting of pest- use in models on the Web. An increasing number of resistant cultivars adapted to local conditions and the useful models are available, and many are accessible

Figure 4.3. Insect traps often provide key information when Figure 4.4. Scouting onion for insects and diseases. Photo monitoring pest development. Photo courtesy of J. courtesy of C. Petzoldt, New York State IPM Pro- A. Wyman, University of Wisconsin. gram, Cornell University. 102 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Textbox 4.3. Monitoring scheme critical for carrot leaf blights: Fungicides cut in half with scouting, proper timing (Source: M. Haining Cowles, Cornell University 1999)

When a 1997 plot comparison revealed no differences of eight, while corresponding grower-managed plots in carrot yield between a field receiving three fungicide received six, four, seven, and eight applications, or a total treatments and one receiving eight, Cornell plant pathologist of twenty-five. Both IPM and grower plots received six George Abawi recognized an urgent need for more work sprays at the fifth site, which was planted to the high on carrot leaf blights. “I saw a tremendous opportunity to susceptibility variety ‘Eagle.’ better control these diseases and also to save on fungicides,” Despite the much lower number of fungicide sprays says Abawi. “There is a great need to educate growers applied in the IPM plots, incidence and severity of leaf about scouting and about withholding treatment until a blight was no worse in those plots than in the other sections certain level of disease severity has been reached.” of the fields. Furthermore, according to Abawi, “There This year’s work, led by Abawi, made good on the were no detectable differences in yield and marketability opportunity and the need. Five commercial carrot fields of carrots grown under the IPM scouting program and were split into “IPM plots” and “Grower-managed” plots. carrots grown under the regular spray schedule at the sites The first treatment for leaf blight in IPM plots was made we harvested.” only when sampling showed infection on 25% of leaves. An added bonus came with the discovery that carrot Subsequent treatments were applied at intervals of 10 to varieties differed greatly in their tolerance of leaf blight. 14 days if scouting reports and weather conditions suggested Some—particularly ‘Fullback’ and ‘Carson’—were highly a high probability of leaf blight development. Grower- tolerant; ‘Carson’ required no treatment at one site. Others— managed plots were treated according to growers’ standard such as ‘Eagle’—were very susceptible to blight. Armed practice. with this new information, growers can cut down on Results were dramatic: Four of the IPM plots received fungicide applications and increase profitability by choosing zero, two, three, and three fungicide applications, or a total certain cultivars.

from the Web. The UC–IPM Program lists on its Web site several models for insects and mites beneficial to plants, for insects and mites harmful to plants, and for plant diseases, nematodes, and weeds. Many of these models provide insights into pest and crop development for vegetables and serve as bases on which to increase the intensity of field scouting or pest control activities (see Figure 4.6 on the UC–IPM Pro- gram’s phenology model database for corn earworm and tomato fruitworm). The UC–IPM Web site also offers to approximately 350 weather stations current and historical weather data downloadable for use in pest and crop models. Many other states use the In- ternet to provide growers and consultants with weather information in addition to pest and crop information. Each segment of the vegetable industry represents a continuum of adoption of IPM practices, ranging from systems considered chemically dependent (no IPM adoption) to those considered biologically dependent. With a goal of meeting the Clinton Administra- tion’s goal of 75% adoption of IPM practices, the Na- tional Potato Council initiated a survey of the U.S. Figure 4.5. Description of Barnyardgrass on the University of potato industry in 2000 to determine where the indus- CaliforniaÐIPM Program website (University of Cali- fornia 2003). try was positioned on this adoption continuum (see Figure 4.7, “Calculating Grower IPM Adoption”). Crop Production Systems 103

Textbox 4.4. Eliminating herbicides in New York state cabbage (Source: M. Haining Cowles, Cornell University 1999)

Good news on the IPM front came last year from a Following is a summary of findings: project on weed control in transplanted cabbage. Herbicide 1. The second nitrogen application increased cabbage applications were eliminated; weeds were managed instead yields for all treatments by an average of six tons per acre. by a combination of cultivation and the planting of a cover 2. Three cultivations, either with or without interseeded crop between cabbage rows. Robin Bellinder, faculty cover crops, provided control equivalent to that of member of the Fruit and Vegetable Science Department at herbicides. Cornell University, found that as long as moisture conditions 3. Two cultivations were insufficient as a weed are adequate and cabbage receives enough nitrogen, yields management strategy, whether or not they were in fields using these IPM methods are equivalent to those combined with a cover crop. in fields treated with herbicides. Variations on the theme included two cultivations 4. Cabbage interseeded with oats suffered the greatest versus three, plus either hairy vetch or spring oats as the yield reductions—about 30% less than yields in the cover crop; two cultivations versus three, with no cover herbicide-treated plots. crop; and one application of nitrogen fertilizer versus two. Bellinder is hopeful that this picture could look even brighter: These treatments were compared with hand weeding, “With further study focused on proper timing, I think we herbicide applications with no cultivation or cover crop may see that two cultivations will be enough, meaning both interseeding, and no weed control at all (a check plot). cost and herbicide reductions.”

Other approaches, including surveys, are being used adopt new IPM methodologies, the industry is mak- to establish baselines of IPM adoption and to measure ing an effort to provide economic incentives to adopt- progress in adoption of IPM practices (see Textbox 4.6 ers of what are often labor- and management-inten- on survey of sweet corn growers). Surveys such as sive programs (Lynch et al. 2000). Examples include these aid in determinations of adoption status and programs for labeling foods “IPM-Grown” and for the adoption progress but also help focus educational use of eco-labels (see Textbox 4.7 on using eco-labels, emphasis on IPM training. As growers continue to and Textbox 4.8 on identifying potatoes grown under eco-label standards). Many IPM programs throughout the United States are focusing on moving the vegetable industry along the continuum toward increased adoption of a rich menu of IPM practices (Benbrook et al. 1996) . Fruit Crops Fruit crops pose special challenges for IPM because most are perennial, expensive to establish, and vulnerable to legions of damaging pests. Fruit crops

National Potato Council IPM Adoption Calculator Potato IPM Points Available: 227 points Advanced IPM Points Available: 109 points No IPM Emerging Basic Established Advanced Optimal <50%>50% 70% 80% 100% 100% <114 points<114 points 160 points 180 points > 227 points > 245 points Chemically dependent, Biologically dependent, Low decision making High decision making

Figure 4.6. Access to phenology model database for corn ear- Figure 4.7. Beginning in 2000, the National Potato Council is worm and tomato fruitworm from University of Cali- using a pest management assessment survey to forniaÐIPM Program website (University of California determine grower adoption of IPM practices (Na- 2003). tional Potato Council 2002). 104 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Textbox 4.5. New York state muck onion growers see beneficial effects of Sudan grass cover cropping (Source: M. Haining Cowles, Cornell University 1999)

Sudan grass is a warm-season cover crop with An acre of Sudan grass, on the other hand, requires no extremely useful qualities: It builds and repairs soil pesticides. By planting 280 a. in Sudan grass in 1996, damaged by compaction and depleted by overcropping, Orange County onion growers decreased countrywide and evidently it suppresses harmful nematodes and root pesticides usage by 7,000 lb (280 x 25). rot fungi. But New York’s vegetable growers have until One of the latest onion farms in Orange County has now lacked adequate information about how to get the begun planting Sudan grass on 25% of its acreage each most out of a rotation with Sudan grass. For instance, year. The grower will assure that each field has been When should it be planted? When and how often should rotated to Sudan grass within four years. Eight other it be mowed? growers also have incorporated Sudan grass into their Since 1993, Cornell Cooperative Extension educators production practices during the course of the IPM-funded have conducted demonstrations with Sudan grass used as Sudan grass project. a seasonlong rotational crop for onions in muck soil. In Vegetable growers and agribusinesses have received 1996 and 1997, on-farm harvest evaluations showed yield a fact sheet summarizing cultural practices for Sudan grass increases of 15 to 45% and stand count increases of 30 to and data on yield and quality improvements attributable 90% for rotated fields over nonrotated fields. Positive to it. The fact sheet includes the recommendations shown effects remain noticeable two years after rotation to Sudan here in abbreviated form. grass, with average yield and stand count increases of 19 1. Sudan grass works best as a full-season crop, but it and 13%, respectively, over nonrotated fields. Onion size should not be sown before early June, when soils are decreases slightly in rotated fields. A 10 to 20% decrease warm and moist. in planting rates after rotation should maintain adequate 2. Seed should be sown at 40 to 50 lb/a. Drilling seeds bulb size. seems to improve germination, especially under dry Previous studies have shown that Sudan grass decreases conditions. If seed is broadcast, it should be incorporated pest pressure by disrupting pest cycles and decreasing with a light disking. populations of soil-dwelling pests. No significant decreases in pest populations were seen in 1996, but analysis of 3. Sudan grass will benefit from fertilization. Broadcasting rotated fields in 1998 did show a decrease in black mold 75 to 100 lb of nitrogen/a. should be adequate. incidence over that in nonrotated fields. 4. Sudan grass should be mowed at the height of 3 to 4 Although it is unclear at this point whether the ft to encourage tillering and deeper root growth and to improvements in onion yield and quality that follow rotation prevent stems from becoming too woody. to Sudan grass are attributable to improved physical 5. In the fall, before the first killing frost, Sudan grass, characteristics of soil, suppression of pests, or both, growers while still green, should be cut or chopped and disked appreciate the improvements. They also appreciate the thoroughly into the top 4 to 8 inches of soil. Fall disking potential for decreased chemical pesticide use represented allows ample time for decomposition, thus minimizing by such rotation. An average seasonlong pesticide load chances of nitrogen tie-up in spring. on 1 a. of onions in Orange County, New York, is 25 lb.

destined for fresh consumption also must meet strin- pectancies of 12 to more than 30 yr. gent marketing standards because even superficial Fruit crops usually must be protected with multi- blemishes on fruit are unacceptable to most consum- ple applications of pesticides each season because a ers (Figure 4.8). Where pest-resistant varieties have great number of major pests attack fruit and fruit been developed, acceptance of these varieties has been trees. Over the past 60 yr, synthetic pesticides have delayed at times, possibly as a result of the undesir- been developed to control most insect, mite, and fun- able flavor or horticultural qualities. Unfamiliar va- gal pests on important fruit crops. Scientists pio- rieties also may be comparatively difficult to market, neered the concept of IPM for tree fruits in the 1960s especially in locations where consumers recognize and and the early 1970s, but most farmers then believed request known varieties (Merwin et al. 1994). Chang- that pesticides had solved or soon would solve all ing varieties or cultural practices is a slow process for major pest problems. From the 1940s through the fruit crops because plantings commonly have life ex- early 1970s, many fruit growers applied pesticides on Crop Production Systems 105

Textbox 4.6. Measuring progress in IPM adoption: Survey of sweet corn growers provides data (Source: J. Tette, Cornell University 1999)

The “continuum of IPM” refers to the incorporation operations are not near sites where IPM methods have of IPM methods, starting with a chemically based calendar been demonstrated. spray program and moving to an information-based program Data from the survey helped the New York State IPM that relies on biologically intensive methods. By calculating Program by revealing that future educational outreach their position along this continuum, growers in any cropping efforts need to emphasize weed mapping, nutrient testing system can measure their progress in terms of IPM adoption. before sidedressing additional fertilizer, and accurate record In 1997, progress in IPM adoption was measured through keeping. a survey of fresh-market sweet corn growers, conducted as a collaborative effort with the New York State Table: A measure of New York fresh-market sweet corn Agricultural Statistics Service. A total of 206 growers growers using IPM methods were asked fourteen questions about their IPM practices. Percentage of IPM Number of Growers Questions were related to IPM Elements for sweet corn, Elements Adopted Using IPM Elements as defined by growers, processors, retail food distributors, (Total number of and Cornell University researchers. The IPM Elements growers = 206) are the latest and best of IPM and integrated crop ≥90 9 management practices for a particular crop. 80 17 As can be seen in the Table, greater than 10% of 206 70 26 growers adopted 80% or more of all IPM elements. This 60 52 group has progressed far along the IPM continuum. An 50 39 additional 117 growers adopted 50 to 90% of the Elements, 40 34 showing a high degree of adoption, but with some room 30 10 for improvement. The remaining 30% may not have been ≤20 19 able to adopt IPM practices more fully because their

a calendar basis regardless of pest populations. Farm- emerged as a significant problem and as adverse non- er interest in IPM increased sharply in the mid and target effects of pesticides became recognized more late 1970s as introductions of new pesticide chemis- widely. tries slowed. Pesticide labels also became more re- Since the 1970s, IPM strategies have focused on strictive as pest resistance to existing pesticides decreasing costs and minimizing dependence on broad-spectrum pesticides with adverse nontarget effects. Emergence of pesticide resistant pest populations has fueled farmer interest in preserving predators able to suppress these populations. Increasing costs for new pesticide chemistries have created an economic incentive for decreasing pesticide use, and farmers gradually have become more skilled at selecting pesticides and at timing applications so as to preserve parasites and predators. They also have become more adept at monitoring pest populations, delaying pesticide applications until populations reach economic thresholds, and timing applications to maximize pesticide efficacy. These developments have been facilitated by two successive national IPM programs: the National Science Foundation Huffaker Project Figure 4.8. Flyspeck and sooty blotch diseases on apple fruit and its successor, the U.S. Department of Agriculture cause superficial defects unacceptable to consum- (USDA)/Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ers. These diseases are controlled by fungicides Adkisson Project (Whalon and Croft 1984). applied during summer. Photo courtesy of D. Rosenberger, New York State Agricultural Extension After the Alar scare in 1989, many food processors Service. (and especially baby-food processors) forced changes 106 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Textbox 4.7. The growing market for IPM labels (Source: M. Haining Cowles, Cornell University 1999)

The labeling of food as “IPM-grown” began in 1995 on the part of growers and processors. This stewardship is with fresh IPM-grown sweet corn sold by a Wegmans grocery expressed in part by decreased pesticide use. Data from store near Rochester, New York. A follow-up survey completed several crops in New York state show that adoption of IPM by 300 Wegmans’ customers showed substantial support for Elements at the 80% level will result in pesticide use decreases the new label. Four years later, the IPM labeling movement of 30 to 50%. Data concerning the environmental impact of was burgeoning. pesticides used on each crop also are being gathered. As The Wegmans Initiative. Seeking the means to offer shown in the Table, the data indicate decreasing environmental customers IPM-grown sweet corn, executives from Wegmans impact quotients (EIQs) over time. (Crops showing greater Food Markets, Inc., a Rochester, New York-based retail grocer, environmental effects in 1997 than in 1996 faced increased approached Cornell University in 1994. Cornell IPM extension pest pressures in 1997.) educators offered training in IPM methods to growers who had been supplying fresh-market sweet corn to Wegmans. Table: Trends in decreasing the environmental impact of The training was funded and cofacilitated by PRO-TECH, a growing processed crops, measured by the Environmental Cornell Cooperative Extension program whose mission was Impact Quotient to enhance, through educational offerings, the sustainability Crop EIQ Values 1996 EIQ Values 1997 and competitiveness of New York’s fruit, vegetable, and ornamental horticulture industries. Beets 72 66 When the initial experiment with IPM-grown sweet corn Carrots 258 173 proved successful, Wegmans decided to sell it at additional Kraut cabbage 45 74 stores and also to obtain IPM labels for canned and frozen Peas 23 27 vegetables. Comstock Michigan Fruit, the grower-owned Snap beans 114 110 company supplying Wegmans with processed fruits and Sweet corn 136 119 vegetables, selected ten growers already practicing IPM to grow processing vegetables for marketing under IPM labels. Integrated Pest Management labeling, New York and Once an agreement to market IPM vegetables was reached, beyond. As of 1999, IPM labels could be found on bins of interested growers, representatives from Wegmans and fresh corn, tomatoes, cherries, and asparagus and on cans of Comstock, and Cornell’s IPM extension educators formulated corn, peas, and beets in most of the 50+ stores owned by “IPM Elements” for six processing crops: beets, cabbage for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. in New York and Pennsylvania. sauerkraut, carrots, peas, snap beans, and sweet corn. As of Eden Valley Growers, a central New York cooperative for 1999, IPM Elements had been developed for 16 vegetable sweet corn growers, is another licensed IPM logo user. and fruit crops in New York. Integrated Pest Management labels have been used at the The Elements are lists of agreed-upon IPM and crop farm stands of 50 strawberry growers who belong to the New management practices to be followed in producing crops to York Berry Growers Association and on the canned and frozen be sold under an IPM label. Growers are assigned points for vegetables processed by Agrilink Foods. adopting techniques in the Elements. Each grower must keep Certain growers and land-grant university scientists are detailed records verifying use of the techniques, and a specific developing IPM Elements for use in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, predetermined point total must be achieved to qualify a crop and Hawaii. A nonprofit organization, the PM Institute of as “IPM grown.” All farmers currently growing for IPM North America, was formed to coordinate labeling needs labeling have scored at or above the 80% level each year, or nationally. All these entities look to the New York program approximately 15% beyond the amount required to qualify as their model. for the IPM label. Statistics about IPM labeling trends in New York State Grower progress in adopting IPM Elements is documented were gathered by an independent evaluator at the request of by an independent third party and reported to Wegmans. The food processing companies. These statistics show increases use of the New York State IPM Program logo on IPM labels in the numbers of growers and of acres producing crops for ensures the integrity of participants in the labeling process. IPM labeling, and decreases in the environmental effects of The logo is owned by the Cornell Research Foundation, which growing these crops: obtained a trademark on it and holds the licensing agreement New York State producers growing for IPM labeling: for its use as a label, whether by Wegmans or by any other 31 in 1996; 113 in 1997; 152 in 1998 (est.) party. Purposes of IPM labeling. Integrated Pest Management New York State acres growing IPM-labeled produce: labeling encourages and rewards environmental stewardship 3,490 in 1996; 8,092 in 1997; 9,029 in 1998 (est.) Crop Production Systems 107

Textbox 4.8. “Healthy Grown” potatoes: A case example of collaboration (Source: D. Sexson, University of Wisconsin–Madison 2001)

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) teamed up with the for potatoes. The ecostandards comprise (1) a biointensive Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association IPM adoption section and (2) a toxicity score. In the first (WPVGA) and the University of Wisconsin (UW) to section are certain practices (such as rotation) that growers educate potato growers about using more biologically must adopt to be certified; without such adoption, growers based pest management systems. The collaboration began are eliminated automatically. Other practices qualify as an effort to promote the development and adoption of growers for a bonus that increases their total number of biointensive IPM practices, to enhance habitat quality, to points. The toxicity guidelines are written so that growers refine measurement systems for IPM adoption, to find minimize the amount of high-risk pesticides they apply to marketplace incentives for ecologically produced potatoes, a field in a given year. Toxicity unit totals are derived to identify policies and programs supporting IPM goals, from a toxicity values scoring system developed by the and to maintain economically viable farming systems. WWF/WPVGA/UW collaboration. Growers must limit The collaboration has achieved significant progress the total number of toxicity units during the year to be toward decreasing the toxicity levels of pesticides used in eligible for certification. potato production while increasing biointensive IPM If growers meet the requirements of both sections, they adoption. Potato growers in Wisconsin achieved a 21% qualify for the nonprofit ecolabel “Protected Harvest” (see overall decrease in system toxicity from 1995 to 1999 www.protectedharvest.org). Potatoes grown in Wisconsin (toxicity values for each pesticide are determined according in 2001 that met the “Protected Harvest” standards were to the relative environmental and human risks it poses). endorsed by the WWF and carried the panda logo on their Of 11 specifically targeted high-risk pesticides, a 37% bags. To maximize marketing efforts, it has been agreed decrease in toxicity units was observed from the 1995 that all potatoes grown under these standards will be sold baseline to 1999 figures. under the brand name “Healthy Grown” (see In the fall of 2000, ecological standards were written www.healthygrown.com). in fruit IPM by instituting pesticide use restrictions strategies for all classes of pests, and third-level IPM more stringent than federal pesticide label require- was defined as the integration of all aspects of crop ments. These processors purchased only crops treat- production. Advancing to higher levels of IPM is ex- ed according to their own guidelines and enforced ceedingly difficult with fruit crops because of the com- their policies with extensive pesticide residue testing. plexity involved in simultaneously optimizing control Policies were developed primarily for marketing pur- strategies for so many different pests. poses and had little or no toxicological basis. Never- Summarizing the details of pest management for theless, farmers producing fruit for such processors any given fruit crop is difficult because of regional were obliged to adjust IPM strategies to meet the new variations due to differences in pest complexes, vari- pesticide restrictions. Similar adjustments have been eties, climates, and marketing objectives. Pest man- made by farmers opting to grow fruit organically, for agement tools used against major pests for a few fruit certified IPM programs, and for certain export mar- crops are listed in Table 4.2. kets in which standards are enforced by wholesale The World Wide Web hosts many sites providing fruit buyers. detailed information about IPM strategies for fruit Numerous IPM strategies, economic thresholds, crops. Most sites feature search functions allowing and predictive models have been developed over the easy access to topics of interest, and useful links to past three decades and have been summarized in sci- related sites. Starting points for accessing fruit IPM entific and production-oriented publications (e.g., on the Web include the following: Agnello et al. 1999; Hogmire 1995; Ohlendorf and • West Virginia University’s Kearneysville Tree Clark 1999; Strand and Clark 1999; Sutton 1996). Fruit Research and Education Center maintains Evaluation of the acceptance of IPM strategies by a web site that contains extensive information and commercial fruit producers has been more difficult to photography collections related to diseases, in- obtain. Prokopy et al. (1996) used relative degrees of sects, and mites on tree fruit crops in the eastern integration to differentiate among levels of IPM. United States. The site also contains useful links First-level IPM was defined as the use of multiple in- to other Web sites and to on-line newsletters cov- tegrated tactics to manage a single class of pest. Sec- ering fruit IPM (Biggs 2002). ond-level IPM was defined as the optimization of 108 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 4.2. A checklist of availability, importance, and commercial acceptance of various IPM tools for managing major pests on several fruit crops

Chemical pesticides

Biocontrols

Forecasting models to predict development emergence, or spray timing

Nonpheremone traps for population monitoring

Pheremone traps as monitoring tools

Pheremone disruption

Controls based on field scouting and economic action thresholds

Cultural controls or sanitation measures (including horticultural oils)

Resistant germplasm

Apple diseases Apple scab A+ E+ R A+ AÐ AÐ Powdery mildew A+ E+ AÐ AÐ Fire blight A+ E A A+ E A+ E+ AÐ Rust diseases A+ E AÐ AÐ AÐ Black rot and white rot A+ E AÐ A Bitter rot A+ E A Sooty blotch and flyspeck A+ E A AÐ AÐ Postharvest decays A+ E AÐ A E+ Apple insects and mites Plum curculio A+ E A AÐ AÐ AÐ Apple maggot A+ E A A A+ AÐ Coddling moth A E A A A A Oblique-banded leafroller A+ E A+ A R A Tufted apple bud moth A+ E A A A San Jose scale A+ E A A AÐ A Leafhoppers A+ E A A+ AÐ European red mite A+ E A+ A+ A+ E Peach and nectarine diseases Brown rot A+ E+ R AÐ R Peach leaf curl A+ E+ AÐ Powdery mildew A+ E A Bacterial spot A E A A Phomopsis (Constriction canker) A A Peach and nectarine insects Catfacing insects (Hemiptera) A+ E+ A A+ Oriental fruit moth A+ E+ A+ A+ A A Peach tree borers A+ E+ A+ A A Cherry diseases Brown rot A+ E+ Powdery mildew A+ E Cherry leaf spot A+ E A Bacterial canker A E Cherry insects Cherry fruit fly A+ E+ A A A Grape diseases Powdery mildew A+ E+ AÐ A AÐ R Downy mildew A+ E AÐ R Black rot A+ E A A EÐ Bunch rot A+ E+ AÐ AÐ A EÐ Phomopsis cane and leaf spot A+ E+ R Grape insects and mites Grape berry moth A+ E A AÐ A Leafhoppers A+ E+ A A European red mite A EÐ AÐ A

Key Commercial acceptance: Importance for managing pests: A+ = available and widely used where pest is a threat E+ = essential for most production regions and varieties A = available and used in some locations or situations E = essential for some production regions and varieties AÐ = available, but rarely used as a management tool EÐ = an important tool, but it is often not essential for managing pests R = research under way or completed

Source: Compiled by D. A. Rosenberger. Crop Production Systems 109

• Cornell University and the New York State Agri- dling moth on more than 7,700 a. of apples and pears, cultural Experiment Station at Geneva maintain thereby decreasing the need for insecticide sprays and a web site that posts weekly and monthly news- allowing improved survival of parasites and predators letters for various crops during the growing sea- (Senft 1997). In some orchards, insecticides still are son. Newsletter articles address issues as they needed to control pests previously suppressed by cod- emerge in the field. Articles provide life cycle in- dling moth sprays. Pheromone disruption has proved formation on pests and IPM options relevant to less useful in eastern production regions where wild decision making at the grower level (Cornell Fruit hosts and uncultivated apple trees sustain large pop- Information Page 2002). ulations of coddling moths and other pests that im- • The UC–Davis maintains a web site that contains migrate into orchards throughout the growing season extensive information on culture and pest control (see Textbox 4.9 on IPM uses in apple orchards). Leaf- for nearly 50 different fruit and nut crops grown roller insects are more destructive than coddling moth in California (Fruit and Nut Research 2000). in eastern orchards and have proved less susceptible to pheromone disruption. • Washington State University’s Tree Fruit Re- Integrated pest management for postharvest stor- search and Extension Center maintains a web site age and handling has received considerable attention from researchers, but nonpesticide solutions to postharvest problems are evolving only slowly. One strategy gaining widespread acceptance has been that of using a minimum 90-day period of low-oxygen storage to eliminate insect pests from apples designated for export to countries otherwise requiring fumigation with methyl bromide. Postharvest decay problems have been more intransigent (Figure 4.9). Sanitation measures that could limit exposure significantly to postharvest pathogens are often difficult to implement, so packinghouses have continued to rely mainly on postharvest fungicides. Numerous scientists and developers have attempted to develop biocontrols for postharvest diseases of citrus and pome fruits (Wil- son and Wisniewski 1994), but no biocontrol product Figure 4.9. Postharvest decays (in this instance caused by Botrytis cinerea) have been controlled with developed to date has generated broad commercial postharvest applications of fungicides, but im- acceptance among packinghouse operators. Shelf life proved sanitation and biocontrol products may proof the formulated biocontrols has been a limiting fac- vide alternatives in the future. Photo courtesy of D. tor, and most have been unable to provide the consis- Rosenberger, New York State Agricultural Extension tent levels of decay control achieved with traditional Service. fungicides. Postharvest IPM involving a combination that covers research and educational efforts relat- of sanitation and biocontrol may gain wider accep- ed to the Washington tree fruit industry, includ- tance in the future because many pathogens have ing reports on the areawide coddling moth man- developed resistance to available fungicides and be- agement program (Tree Fruit Research 2002). cause most companies have abandoned efforts to de- • David L. Green (2002) provides a wealth of infor- velop new postharvest fungicides. mation on bees and on the pollination of agricul- One of the most successful IPM programs for fruit tural crops. His site also addresses concerns about actually predates the emergence of IPM as a disci- pesticide poisoning of bees and how to avoid it. pline. Certification programs were developed during the 1940s and 1950s to rid many fruit crops of viral The success of nonpesticide strategies for fruit de- problems that were causing extensive losses. Scien- pends on crop, pest complex, and geographic region. tists recognized that most viruses were transmitted For example, the areawide coddling moth manage- to new fruit plantings by way of virus-contaminated ment program in the northwestern United States rep- propagation materials. Pesticides have no direct ef- resents one of the most successful large-scale intro- fects on viruses, so farmers and scientists were forced ductions of nonpesticide alternatives. In that to seek alternative control measures. Individual sci- program, pheromone disruption has controlled cod- entists and states designed programs to eliminate 110 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Textbox 4.9. Integrated complexity: IPM for apple pests in Southeastern New York and Connecticut (Source: D. Rosenberger, Cornell University - Hudson Valley Lab 2001)

Nearly every orchard management decision has threads Selecting the appropriate fungicides for disease control that ultimately impact pest management. Critical IPM decisions is a critical IPM decision. Some fungicides such as mancozeb are made even before trees are planted. Orchard design affects are inexpensive but act only as protectants. Protectant the kinds and severity of pest problems that emerge later in fungicides must be applied before infections occur, whereas the life of the orchard. Growers must select apple cultivars other fungicides have postinfection activity and can be applied that will have consumer acceptance (i.e., be profitable) while up to four days after an infection period. The latter might at the same time avoiding cultivars for which pest damage or appear to offer advantages for IPM programs because sprays pest management costs will eliminate profits. can be applied only as needed based on weather conditions Drainage tile must be installed prior to planting in some that have already occurred. Postinfection scheduling of sites to avoid Phytophthora root rot, a disease that kills tree fungicides, however, means that fungicide timing after rains roots in poorly drained soils; otherwise, trees in such soils becomes critical. Prolonged rains or windy conditions after may need annual applications of the fungicide metalaxyl to rains can result in poor fungicide coverage, and the fungicide protect roots. Fencing may be required to keep out deer; spray timing will seldom coincide with timings required for otherwise, multiple applications of deer repellent sprays may insecticide applications. Labor and equipment costs are be needed to prevent deer from eating buds and stunting trees. therefore much greater for postinfection scab programs than Choices concerning rootstocks, tree spacing, and training when fungicides are applied as protectants and combined systems have long-term impacts on pest problems. Trees with insecticides at critical tree growth stages. spaced too closely require excessive pruning; heavy pruning At the same time that apple growers are monitoring and stimulates excessive vegetative growth; and lush growth spraying for apple scab, they must ensure simultaneous control favors development of many pests and inhibits effective spray of powdery mildew, cedar apple rust, quince rust, blossom- coverage when pesticides are needed. Trees spaced too far end rot, black rot, white rot, bitter rot, flyspeck, and sooty apart will be unprofitable and require more units of pesticide blotch. In addition, multiple applications of streptomycin per ton of apples produced. may be needed during bloom for cultivars that are susceptible Soon after planting, the orchard floor must be smoothed to fire blight, a bacterial disease that enters through blossoms and seeded with a perennial grass cover. Uneven ground and can quickly kill entire trees. Models are available for provides cover for vole populations that can later kill trees predicting the best spray timing for many of these diseases, by eating the bark during winter. Poor establishment of the but growers must integrate this wealth of information into grass cover allows broad-leaf weeds such as dandelion to cost-effective control programs. Each fungicide or fungicide become established. Flowering weeds later compete with combination has specific strengths and weaknesses depending trees for pollinator insects and can also contribute to bee kills on the diseases to be controlled, the apple variety, growth if pesticides are applied to apple trees when the weeds are in stage of the tree, and weather conditions past, present, and bloom. predicted. A sod ground cover is established between rows to decrease Similar or greater complexity exists in managing apple erosion, but ground cover within the tree rows must be arthropods. Degree-day models are available for most of the managed by mowing, tilling, or using herbicides. Selecting major insect pests on apples. Degree-day models predict the herbicides, rates, and timings so as to allow appropriate approximate time that pests will emerge. These predictions regrowth in late summer is just one more IPM decision. are often used as the basis for hanging pheromone or nonbaited Horticultural practices also are intertwined with IPM. sticky traps that can pinpoint exact dates of pest emergence. Annual pruning is essential for removing diseased and broken Control sprays are then suggested for a specific number of limbs that would otherwise contribute inoculum for fire blight, degree-days after the first emergence detected in orchard black rot, white rot, and bitter rot. Pruning also opens the traps. In the Northeast, pheromone traps are commonly used tree canopy and allows thorough pesticide coverage during for coddling moth, oblique-banded leafroller, and spotted the growing season. tentiform leafminer. Traps baited with feeding attractants are To control diseases in apple orchards, growers must begin used for apple maggot. Nonbaited traps are used for tarnished applying fungicides soon after bud break in the spring. plant bug, mullein plant bug, European apple sawfly, and San However, the timing of the first application is critical. Starting Jose scale. Presence/absence sampling of leaves is useful to too early may waste $20 to $40 per acre in unnecessary determining when mites, aphids, and leafhoppers have reached fungicide expenses whereas delaying just several days too thresholds that require intervention with a pesticide. Careful long can result in major crop loss. Several monitoring and selection of pesticides that preserve aphid predators means prediction tools are available to help growers optimize the that aphicides are no longer needed in many orchards. timing of the first application. Apple growers can opt for biological control of mites by Crop Production Systems 111

Textbox 4.9. continued

introducing and fostering predaceous mites. Biological mite more than 20 years as an alternative to pesticide sprays. control can save growers $50 to $100 per acre annually by Maggot trap-out strategies are gradually becoming more eliminating the need for miticide sprays. However, biological feasible and effective, but no cost-effective alternative has mite control can be maintained only in orchards where growers yet emerged. avoid pesticides such as synthetic pyrethroids that are toxic Over the past 20 years, apple growers have decreased to predators. the average number of pesticide applications per season and All fruit growers in the Northeast must apply insecticide changed from calendar-based spraying to applications based sprays to control plum curculio, a beetle that causes fruit on predictive models, orchard scouting, and pheromone traps. scarring shortly after petal fall. Despite extensive research, They have largely substituted newer “soft” pesticides for no nonpesticidal alternatives exist for controlling curculio. broad-spectrum pesticides that were equally lethal to both Similarly, most growers depend on pesticides to control apple pests and beneficial insects. Integrated Pest Management is maggot flies during late summer. Methods for trapping apple now an integral part of apple growing, but the apple farmer maggot flies on baited spheres have been investigated for is the ultimate integrator. viruses from propagating material, to maintain blocks farms. University-based research will provide the of virus-free stock accessible to nursery operators, and basis for improved fruit IPM in the twenty-first cen- to promote production and purchase of virus-free tury, private consultants will be at the forefront of planting stock. These state-level programs led to the IPM implementation, and Cooperative Extension will development of USDA Interregional Project 2 (IR–2) provide a link between the two. Over the next decade in 1955. The IR–2, which was reorganized as the and beyond, regional variations on this structure will National Research Support Project 5, maintained a be common, but the research-extension-consultant repository of related virus-free apple, pear, and stone linkage will provide the most effective basis for broad fruit propagating materials (WSU 2002). implementation of IPM in fruit. In 1954, the NE–14 Regional Research Project “Vi- rus Diseases of Woody, Deciduous Tree Fruits” was organized. For more than 35 yr, this project promot- Integrated Forest Pest ed cooperative research and information exchange Management among scientists throughout North America, and a very effective program has resulted. The recent de- Integrated pest management, integrated forest tection in Pennsylvania of plum pox virus, a destruc- pest management (IFPM), forest health protection, tive stone fruit virus endemic in Europe, indicates forest health, and forest resource protection all are in- that continued vigilance and tree fruit virus research terrelated and have the common goal of protecting and are essential if the successes of the past 60 yr are to sustaining forest resources. Ecosystem management be maintained. for sustaining forest resources also has much to offer Although IPM programs for fruit crops have im- but sometimes fails to take pest problems into account proved and expanded dramatically over the past 20 (Boyce and Haney 1997). Although these approach- yr, continued progress and broader implementation es have similar goals, proponents of each approach can be expected over the next decade. The rate of espouse unique philosophies. With changes in both progress will depend largely on two factors: the lev- societal and individual perspectives, views shift of els of federal and state funding designated for applied how forest resources are to be used appropriately. IPM-related research, and the number of private con- Some individuals may consider certain forest condi- sultants working in fruit crops. Private consultants tions threatening or unhealthy whereas other individ- will play an increasingly important role in IPM im- uals, although recognizing the same conditions, deem plementation because fruit growers are recognizing the course of events healthy. Different convictions that the expertise of consultants for managing com- evolve out of ever-changing individual perceptions plex IPM systems is just as essential to their opera- and/or organizational agendas (Allen 1994; Boyce and tions as the expertise of a tax adviser for managing Haney 1997), and herein lies one of the greatest chal- complex tax and estate planning issues is. Consult- lenges to the protection of natural resources. ants are interdisciplinary integrators and bring with Little (1995) concluded that a new era has emerged themselves a wealth of information gleaned from field in which trees are dying over large regions. Although observations over many years and many different most forests have exceptional “ecosystem resilience” 112 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

(Boyce and Haney 1997), major problems have devel- Pest populations include weeds, plant pathogens, in- oped in certain places; and exotic and endogenous sects, and vertebrates with a significant effect on pests (weeds, disease agents, and insects) and adverse growth loss for pine (Figure 4.12). Branham and environmental factors continue to pose threats to for- Hertel (1984) have presented IFPM recommendations ests. For example, spruce budworm outbreaks have for these agents. been documented in eastern Canada for approximate- Pest agents for change also are influenced by ly 300 yr (Allen 1994). Although insect and disease weather conditions such as prolonged drought, flood- problems undoubtedly always have been part of the ing, or lightning strikes, all of which make trees more normally functioning spruce-fir ecosystem in this re- susceptible to insects and pathogens. Integrated for- gion, and although spruce budworms are a distur- est pest management is an aspect of EBPM in much bance associated with a “healthy” forest, from an eco- the same sense that silviculture is an aspect of applied nomic viewpoint these pests can be devastating. forest ecology (Hedden and Nebeker 1984). Based on Seemingly as a result of a complex of pests (the pri- this definition, IFPM takes into account two interact- mary being the balsam wooly aphid) and environmen- ing factors: integrated control and integrated man- tal problems (e.g., acid rain, which compounded dam- agement of pest complexes.

Figure 4.10. Severe decline in Frazer fir in Mt. Mitchell, North Figure 4.11. Regrowth of Frazer fir in Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina Carolina in 1990. Photo courtesy of K. M. Hartman, in 1997. Photo courtesy of L. F. Grand, North Caro- Monsanto Agricultural Research. lina State University. age from the 1980 to 1990s), Frazer fir and red spruce Integrated control involves use of the appropriate have exhibited a dramatic decline in the Appalachian combination of technologies to ensure economically Mountains, including North Carolina (Figure 4.10). efficient control while minimizing adverse effects on Much natural regrowth has occurred in recent years, the forest ecosystem. Control techniques may include however (Figure 4.11). (1) natural or synthetic insecticides; (2) biological con- Similarly, in presettlement forests, the southern trol agents such as parasites, predators, or pathogens; pine beetle (SPB) was responsible for periodic pertur- (3) behavioral chemicals for timing pest management bations that helped maintain unevenly aged forests activities or manipulating pest populations; (4) cul- and diverse plant species. These outbreaks were ben- tural techniques such as thinning to promote stand eficial events in normally functioning southern pine vigor, or sanitation logging to remove infested or in- ecosystems. But the SPB now is viewed as a pest be- fected material; (5) planting resistant pine species; (6) cause an economic value is placed on pine and because planting trees that have had genes inserted for resis- intensive management of pine forests has caused bee- tance to destructive agents; and (7) related practices. tle populations to interfere with optimization of man- Integrated management of pest complexes is the agement objectives. simultaneous consideration of all potential pests dur- For purposes of this discussion, the term IFPM will ing IFPM program development. This approach min- be used with the understanding that overall forest imizes the total effect of pests on the forest. Exam- health is of primary concern. Any pest causing change ples of pest complexes include the development of in management practices would be the focus of IFPM. annosus root rot after thinning in stands on sandy Crop Production Systems 113 soils and the subsequent attack by bark beetles on the on rotations briefer than 10 yr. Rotations such as infected trees or the development of pitch canker in these present special challenges to IFPM: new pest plantations with high populations of tip moths, where associations will be discovered, as evidenced by the such populations are related to herbicide use (Hed- case of root-feeding aphids appearing in a fiber farm den and Nebeker 1984). At times, a common man- in Missouri during the summer of 2000 and causing agement tactic might decrease the effects of more than mortality to hybrid poplars during the first growing one pest. Runion, Cade, and Bruck (1993) reported season (Nebeker, T. E. 2002. Personal communica- that the insecticide carbofuran decreased terminal tion). This case represents the first time such an as- shoot infection of the pitch canker fungus and termi- sociation has been observed. Other challenges include nal shoot damage by tip moths attacking loblolly pine the management of urban forests and their diverse in eastern North Carolina. pests as ever-increasing numbers of people move from Integrated forest pest management is, however, cities into unpopulated, forested landscapes. only one component of an overall forest management program. Type and intensity of pest management Prevention practiced are determined, ultimately, by the landown- Protecting forests from severe damage or mortali-

Diseases

Natural controls on pathogensManipulation and byinsects humans Insects Need for artificial control of pests Value of individual trees Fire Sophistication and cost of control Use of pesticides Increasing Weather

Animals Increasingly intensive management Maximum Other Figure 4.13. Characteristics of various forest management situ- 0204010 30 50 ations in regard to pest control practices (In Tainter Percentage of total and Baker [1996]; from National Academy of Sci- ences [1975]). Figure 4.12. Agents of destruction and their associated proportion of growth loss in sawtimber (In Tainter and Baker [1996]; redrawn from Hepting and Jemison ty by harmful pests and other damaging agents by [1958]). preventive methods is an ideal goal for forest managers. Six guiding principles should be consulted dur- er’s objectives. For any successful management pro- ing the development of an IFPM plan. Recommend- gram to be developed, the management objective(s) ed practices include the following: must be determined. Lacking such a determination, 1. Match the site with the appropriate tree management cannot perform a cost-benefit or any species. Trees planted on inappropriate sites other type of analysis to determine whether proposed seldom have sufficient vigor to deter or to with- strategies are appropriate. It is accepted generally stand attack. that the need for pest management increases with the 2. Alter stand density. If the stand’s basal area intensity of forest management (Figure 4.13). exceeds the site index, the stand should be As the twenty-first century unfolds, the forested thinned to an appropriate level. landscape will continue to change. More and more exotic forests are emerging. For instance, former ag- 3. Promptly salvage all lightning-struck, log- ricultural farms are being converted to fiber farms, ging-damaged, diseased, or otherwise high- on which intensive silvicultural practices similar to risk trees, and harvest overmature trees traditional farming practices are being used. Many when pest activity is low. Such trees consti- fiber farms are using former row-crop settings for the tute significant pest reservoirs and potential epi- culture of hybrid poplar species such as eastern cot- centers for future pest activity. tonwood (Populus deltoides), which are being grown 4. Plant trees only in their natural range. 114 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Planting outside the range and off site causes Detection and Evaluation stress, which increases susceptibility to attack. 5. Minimize site and stand disturbances. Ex- Essential to any IFPM program are the processes ercise care in the use of heavy equipment, road of detection and evaluation. The oldest method of layout, culvert location, and other construction detection is that of nonexpert detection of a recent projects. Changes in drainage cause tree stress. introduction of an exotic insect species. Haack and colleagues (1997) reported that on August 19, 1996, 6. Harvest all mature trees at, or shortly after, a Brooklyn resident notified the New York City De- rotation age. partment of Parks and Recreation that all the Nor- Prevention of losses from insects or pathogens fol- way maple trees lining the street in front of his house lows implementation of forestry practices, with the at- were riddled with large holes. At first the resident tendant silvicultural practices, recommended for each thought the holes in the maples were the work of van- tree species of interest. Preventive silvicultural prac- dals with huge drills. He also reported seeing sever- tices include favoring the most resistant species, real large black-and-white beetles in the vicinity of the moving high-hazard trees, regulating stocking, and trees. The next day, a New York City forester sent increasing tree species ecological diversity. An under- one of the beetles to Cornell University for identifi- standing of the interactions taking place among the cation. Additional specimens soon were collected, and pest, its host(s), and the environment is necessary the insect was identified as the Asian long-horned (Figure 4.14). beetle. Most early detection of pest problems occurs in this manner, with private citizens recognizing that something is abnormal and that investigation may be warranted. This scenario will continue to be replayed as additional exotic species are introduced into the United States through the increased importation of raw logs and others goods from abroad. In addition to the happenstance recognition among lay people that “something is wrong,” there are standard methods for detecting pest problems. System- atic ground surveys typically are associated with forest inventories and tree health monitoring. Powerful tools for examining forest attributes and health, aerial surveys allow large areas of forestland to be assessed with limited expenditures of time and labor. In the future, aerial detection of pest problems (defoliation or mortality) will incorporate remotely sensed data acquired from satellite platforms. The technologies now being used in precision agriculture, including GPS and GIS, have great potential for monitoring large- to small-scale forests for problem foci, as well as for data management and analysis (Boyce and Haney 1997). With the rapid advancement of technology within the realm of remote sensing, detection and recognition of present or potential problems may become more rapid and efficient. Like visual detection of defoliation and other forest pest indicators, acoustical detection may be incorporated into pest monitoring. Some pest organisms of economic concern spend much of their life cycle within their hosts and so cannot be detected visually. Using sonic and ultrasonic emissions to detect these hidden organisms will be part of future detection capabilities, especial- Figure 4.14. Interaction of multiple components that lead to growth loss and/or mortality over a forested land- ly as efforts are made to prevent the entry of exotic scape (Tainter and Baker 1996). pests associated with raw log and wood imports. Crop Production Systems 115

Hazard Rating Systems 1991), white pine blister rust (Rust 1988), and little leaf disease (Oak 1985), to mention a few. Hazard/risk rating systems also play an important In IFPM, the land manager or owner must know role in IFPM. Conditions placing a forest at extreme, something about the vulnerability of his or her lands high, medium, or low risk of burning during the fire to a variety of potentially destructive agents. To this season are understood fairly well. The same is true end, hazard ratings can be of great assistance, just as of insects and disease. Hazard rating systems pro- risk rating systems can be with respect to fire. Haz- vide the ability to rate site and stand conditions in ard ratings must be viewed as another piece of infor- terms of potential for attack (very high to very low). mation in the decision making process concerning the Use of appropriate hazard rating systems, which have management of valuable resources as a whole; man- been developed for various insects and pathogens, can agement decisions should not be based on these rat- enhance management decisions and options. These ings alone, for negative economic, ecological, and so- decisions usually are derived from an understanding cial consequences of decisions made with limited of site and stand conditions associated characteristi- input—especially when based solely on hazard rating cally with specific insect and disease epidemics. values—can result. Numerous hazard-rating systems incorporating site and stand information (Billings and Bryant 1982; Hicks et al. 1980; Honea, Nebeker, and DeAngelis Actions and Consequences 1987; Ku, Sweeney, and Shelburne 1980; Kushmauel Problems or potential problems must be defined in et al. 1979; Lorio and Sommers 1981; Mason and Bry- terms of forest management objective(s) stated and ant 1984; Sader and Miller 1976) have been developed subsequent impact(s) quantified. Impacts must be for the SPB for various regions of the Southeast. definable and measurable in terms of the stated man- Honea, Nebeker, and Straka (1987) conducted an eco- agement objective or objectives. Impacts can be de- nomic evaluation of seven SPB hazard rating systems. fined in many different ways but are, broadly speak- These have been recommended since as decision cri- ing, ecologic, economic, or social. From an IFPM teria for harvest or thinning-age determinations re- perspective, impact must be defined specifically so garding nonindustrial private forestlands. The use that appropriate actions can be taken and balanced of such systems in harvest decision making can result against objectives. in pine stands’ being harvested or thinned before or An IFPM option that always must be considered after economically optimal rotation age, or before or is that of doing nothing, or of “letting nature run its after the age that maximizes net present value. Sub- course.” What are the implications of doing nothing? stantial opportunity costs can result. Recommenda- From a historical point of view, periodic outbreaks can tions to use any hazard rating system should be ac- be expected as a result of population fluctuations. companied by guidelines reflecting the economic That rates of mortality and/or growth loss in forests implications of nonoptimal harvest or thinning. will be in line with past trends and continue into the Kessler, Heller, and Hard (1981) demonstrated a future also can be expected. With increases in acre- hazard rating system indicating the susceptibility of age of host type, however, proportional increases in stands to Douglas fir tussock moth defoliation, includ- pest population activity and associated losses may ing the probability of defoliation. For fir and red result. Growers also must be aware of the potential spruce stands infested with the spruce budworm in introduction of exotics as forestry practices change northern Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, a and intensify. potential hazard rating system incorporating cambi- Direct intervention, of which pesticide usage pro- al electrical resistance has been developed (Davis, vides a helpful example, is another IFPM approach Shortle, and Shigo 1980). to consider. In many instances, use of pesticides, or Hazard rating systems also have been developed biocides, may be preferred in the short term because for diseases. For annosus root rot, Baker et al. (1993) they make possible the immediate control, through developed a classification and a regression tree anal- mortality, of unwanted organisms. Pesticides have ysis for assessing the hazard of pine mortality caused numerous disadvantages, however, and long-term by Heterobasidion annosum. Alexander (1989) pre- ecologic, economic, and social costs must be taken into sented annosus root disease hazard rating, detection, account during considerations of pesticide use in and management strategies for the southeastern forests. United States. Hazard rating systems also have been Other direct management options include salvage developed for dogwood anthracnose (Langdon et al. removal. Land managers and owners usually prefer 116 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies salvage removal because it allows for the removal and mapping should facilitate characterization of miner- use of infested/infected trees, thus providing the land- alization and nutrient cycling, including the effects owner with a degree of economic return. For effec- of soil microflora/fauna and soil-related factors such tive salvage, affected material must be removed as as organic-matter content and soil moisture (Görres soon as possible after detection. Rapid reaction will et al. 1997). Among the soil organisms used as indi- increase greatly the probabilities that the causal or- cators of soil and plant health, entomopathogens, or ganism will be removed from the site and that addi- nematodes and fungi-parasitizing insects, may have tional spread in the area will be prevented. This ad- potential as biological indicators of deforestation and vantage is of special interest in urban forest settings, land use (Barker and Barker 1998). where the value of individual trees is quite high. Doubtless, many technologies as yet undiscovered Other direct options are cutting and leaving; cutting, also will be used to assist in IFPM programs. The piling, and burning; and using various trap-tree and ways in which remote sensing can be used to monitor trap-out techniques (i.e., baiting selected trees to at- forest health have not been exhausted, and the man- tract insects and then destroying insects and infest- ner of data acquisition also will change, although sys- ed trees; and setting general area, pheromone-baited tem biology must not be taken for granted. Species insect traps). Indirect intervention, yet another IFPM approach, 10 manipulates the pest population by disrupting the normal colonization processes. Applicable methods include pheromone aggregation or antiaggregation 8 tactics, to silvicultural treatments. Indirect treatments are preventive and have as objectives the maintenance of tree growth above, and of mortality below, 6 a predetermined level (Figure 4.15). This level often Economic injury level is referred to as an action threshold, above which B management activity takes place to prevent effects 4 such as mortality and/or growth reduction. The Amount of disease threshold also might be aesthetic: for instance, the beholder may consider a certain amount of defoliation 2 acceptable, but once it approaches the threshold level, action must be taken (Figure 4.15). Insofar as they incorporate tactics of standard for- 0 estry operations, silvicultural treatments are pre- A Time ferred actions among forest managers. Such tactics Figure 4.15. A disease-control threshold diagram showing (A) include preparing sites, managing water, thinning, time and (B) amount of disease at which control burning in a prescribed manner, and fertilizing. must be applied to keep disease level below the economic injury level (Tainter and Baker 1996). Future Concerns Of crucial importance to the forests of North Amer- still will need to be identified if prescriptions for man- ica is the introduction of exotic pests/invasive plant agement are to be made. To avoid decreasing biodi- and pest species. Recognizing that invasive plants versity, growers will need to pay attention to details and pests pose an increasing threat to U.S. forests, of the living landscape. the Invasive Species Council released its first Man- The importance of information will continue to agement Plan in July 2000 (Campbell 2002). grow, and it will be obtained from an increasing num- In the future, soil also will need to be considered ber of sources. Internet web sites will serve as one carefully. Soil is a nonrenewable resource often over- type of source regarding IFPM; indeed, they already looked in IFPM programs. Insofar as it is the corner- provide a great deal of information. Web sites that stone of ecology for terrestrial ecosystems (Boyce and currently are providing useful information and are Haney 1997), soil inhabitants (including insects, par- likely to be maintained during the next decade include asitic fungi and nematodes, and beneficial microbes/ Canadian Forest Service (2002), Center for Integrat- fauna) also warrant closer study (Barker and Barker ed Pest Management (2002), University of Massachu- 1998; Görres et al. 1997). Geostatistical analyses and setts Bookstore (2002), and USDA (2000). Crop Production Systems 117

organic food production systems and sustainable ag- Organic Systems/Sustainable riculture systems and assesses, briefly, the outlook for Agriculture each, including the role of IPM. Although productivity for key crops in several countries has more than doubled during the last five de- Organic Cropping Systems cades, the need for food (based on projected popula- Background and Terminology tion increases) likely will increase by more than 50% during the next 50 yr (Avery 1995; Gold 1999). Much Foods promoted as organically grown have been enhanced productivity has been the result of the ad- produced in the United States since the late 1940s vent of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides enabling (NOP 2002). Food has, of course, been “organically producers to augment yields and quality readily. But grown” for centuries. The term organic farming was concerns about synthetic inputs are generating inter- used initially in England, by Lord Northbourne (Gold est in organically grown foods. 1999). According to a 1980 USDA definition, the term Additional crop productivity likely will not come as organic farming refers to a production system that the result of bringing new lands into cultivation, es- avoids or largely excludes synthetically produced fer- pecially in the United States. Total land devoted to cropland in the contiguous 48 states increased only 250 Input slightly for the period 1945 to 1993 (Anderson and Output/Input Magleby 1997). In contrast, total land devoted to all Output agricultural uses decreased sharply while total land 200 devoted to special uses increased sharply (Anderson and Magleby 1997). Since 1970, more than 30 million a. of productive farmland has been lost to urban 150 development; some 155,000 U.S. farms were lost or consolidated during the decade between 1987 and Indices (1948=100) 1997 alone (Gold 1999). 100 From 1945 to 1993 in the United States, agricultural production increased mainly as the result of 50 improved conventional farming systems, and output 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Year increased more than twofold (Anderson and Magleby 1997; see Figure 4.16). It should be pointed out, how- Figure 4.16. Productivity growth in U.S. agriculture, 1943 to 1993 ever, that the almost-stable input figure for this near (after Anderson and Magleby 1997). half century is somewhat misleading. Agricultural producers minimized cost increases by substituting tilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock durable equipment and capital for labor. Moreover, feed additives; or genetically modified organisms pesticide usage increased an average of 6.2%/yr; fer- (GMOs), which are bred by means of genetic engineer- tilizer usage, 1.7%/yr; and energy inputs, 0.8%/yr. ing techniques. These data offer clues as to how agriculture has, over To the greatest extent possible, organic farming the last five decades, been fulfilling rapidly growing systems rely on crop rotations, crop residues, animal demands for increased food. In light of declining avail- manures, legumes, green manures, off-farm wastes, able cropland and increasing populations—especial- mechanical cultivation, mineral-bearing rocks, and ly worldwide—a need for sustainable cropping biological pest control to maintain soil productivity systems is nondebatable. Nevertheless, the charac- and tilth, to supply plant nutrients, and to control teristics of farming systems that contribute to sustain- insects, weeds, and other pests (Gold 1999). Having ability with minimally negative effects on the envi- begun as garden plots on a few scattered farms, the ronment and human health have been and continue organic food sector has expanded greatly, growing at to be discussed vigorously by parties with divergent a rate of 20%/yr. Sales now amount to some $5 bil- viewpoints. Although they have certain EBMPs in lion to $6 billion/yr. Such a rate of growth cannot be common, organic farming and sustainable agriculture sustained indefinitely. are very different approaches to food and fiber pro- A marketplace premium of 10 to 30%, and in some duction. Rather than focusing on such divergences, instances more than 200%, for organic foods often is this section addresses recent progress made in both an important reason for growers’ choosing to produce 118 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies by organic methods (Greer and Diver 2000; Liebman The OFPA and the NOP require that these organic 2001). The total number of organic farmers in the foods originate from farms or handling operations United States is approximately 12,200, most of whom certified by a state or a private agency accredited by are small-scale producers and cannot benefit from the the USDA (NOP 2002). economies of scale associated with corporate-style Development of the new NOP and the related fi- farming of traditional crops. In fact, organic produc- nal rule took many years. After establishing the 15- tion often has variable returns for farmers and regions member NOSB and publishing the proposed rule in and is not a viable means of increasing profits for all 1997, the USDA received 275,603 public comments growers (Liebman 2001). Still, the number of organic suggesting how the rule should be reviewed. The cur- farmers is increasing at a rate of 12%/yr. With the rent voluminous document is available on the Inter- current growth in the organic product industry, pre- net (NOP 2002). miums may diminish greatly or disappear over time. The need for the final rule stemmed from the rap- Nevertheless, should public concerns over GMOs or id growth of the organic farming sector. The NOP biotech issues such as product labeling continue to Final Rule is expected to facilitate European accep- grow, premiums could last indefinitely. Additional tance of NOP-certified organic products. Annual motivating factors for producers of organic products growth rates of 25 to 30% in organic farming also have include the potential for decreasing input costs, min- occurred in Europe and in Japan over the last few imizing negative environmental impacts, and improv- years. By the year 2006, annual organic food markets ing safety and function or diversity of agroecosystems in Europe are projected to reach approximately $58 (Greer and Diver 2000). billion, and in the United States, $47 billion (NOP An updated characterization of organic foods in the 2002). United States, “The National Organic Program (NOP) Final Rule,” includes the establishment of an NOP under the direction of the Agricultural Marketing Organic Production Systems and Integrated Service, a division of the USDA (NOP 2002, Decem- Pest Management ber 21, 2000 65 FR 80548). The NOP document in- The principal guidelines for organic production are cludes an extensive list of definitions, including a to use materials and practices enhancing the ecolog- definition for organic matter. According to the docu- ical balance of natural systems and integrating the ment, organic is “a labeling term that refers to an parts of the farming system into an ecologic whole. agricultural product produced in accordance with the Although they cannot ensure that products are com- act and regulations in this part” (p. 5). In 1995, a re- pletely free of harmful residues, organic agriculture lated definition of organic farming was developed practices can be used to minimize pollution of air, soil, jointly by the USDA National Organic Standards and water. Organic food handlers, producers, and Board (NOSB) and the NOP: Organic production is retailers adhere to standards maintaining the integ- “a production system that is managed in accordance rity of organic agricultural products. The primary with the Act and regulations in this part to respond goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, bi- and productivity of interdependent communities of ological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling soil life, plants, animals, and people (Gold 1999; NOP of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve 2002). biodiversity” (p. 5). Organic is a labeling term denot- The presence of adequate soil organic matter has ing products produced under the authority of the Or- many benefits, including improved soil tilth, water- ganic Foods Production Act (OFPA) (Gold 1999; NOP holding capacity, soil-nutrient cycling, activity of ben- 2002). eficial soil organisms, and general crop growth (Magd- The primary purpose of the NOP and the final rule off and van Es 2000). is, therefore, to provide regulations ensuring that or- The severely restricted use of chemical pesticides ganically labeled products meet consistent national and the exclusion of genetically engineered crop va- standards. The Final NOP Rule also should prove rieties affect IPM programs in organic production, helpful with unexpected pest epidemics, for it provides under which the pesticides permitted must general- a crop insurance system. All farms, wild-crop harvest- ly be derived from organic materials. The Pesticide ing operations, and handling operations selling agri- Data Progam (PDP) will be used to establish residue cultural products as organically produced will be af- tolerances, which likely will be 5% of the EPA toler- fected. The only organic producers exempted from the ances for major pesticides. Synthetic pesticides are plan are those selling products valued at < $5,000/yr. prohibited unless specifically allowed on the nation- Crop Production Systems 119 al list, which is recommended by the NOSB and ap- es have been so successful in Ohio (Hoitink and Fahy proved by the Secretary of Agriculture (see NOP 1986) that methyl bromide has not been used in the 2002). nursery industry for two decades in that state (Diver 1998). Plant root pathogens such as Pythium sp. usu- Greenhouse Systems ally are suppressed through general competition in these mixes whereas other fungi, including Rhizocto- Most horticultural and greenhouse practices/tech- nia spp., may require specific microbial antagonists. nologies for organic and conventional production sys- Of interest are extracts from a pine bark mulch forti- tems are quite similar, but the two major components fied with numerous microbes recently shown to in- that differ most substantively involve pest manage- duce, in cucumber and in Arabidopsis, systemic ac- ment and soil fertility (Greer and Diver 2000). In quired resistance to foliar pathogens (Colletotrichum regard to both, IPM relies heavily on cultural prac- orbiculare and Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculico- tices and biological controls, but in regard to soil fer- la, respectively [Zhang et al. 1998]). tility IPM also relies heavily on animal wastes and green-manure crops and legumes. Field Organic Systems Numerous parasitoids and predators of insects are becoming available for use in the management of Integration of management practices resulting in greenhouse insects, mites, and other arthropods (Gill, increased agroecosystem biodiversity is crucial to suc- Clement, and Dutky 1999; Greer and Diver 1999); cessful organic production on a field scale. Enhance- strategies include commercial packages of parasitoids ment factors or practices include rotations, cover and predators (Greer and Diver 1999; see Chapter 2). crops, no-tillage, composts, green manures, other or- As described in various publications addressing IPM ganic matter additions, windbreaks, intercrops, and for greenhouses, additional products are likely to be agroforestry (Altieri 1994). Related functions and marketed in the future (Gill Clement, and Dutky components that must be considered in efforts to pro- 1999; Greer and Diver 1999). For ground-culture mote biodiversity are summarized in Figure 4.17. greenhouse systems, weed control in organic produc- Pest control on highly susceptible crops continues tion can be a challenge. Current tactics available for to pose a challenge in all cropping systems. The use nonherbicidal weed management within the green- of one key practice, such as the addition of large house include a combination of mechanically cultivat- amounts of organic matter, may fail to control given ing in the traditional manner, hoeing, steam pasteur- plant pests adequately. For example, the addition of izing, solarizing, mulching with plastic/organic 16 t (wet wt) of swine manure/a. did not control root- materials or another type of fiber, and poultry graz- knot nematodes on tomato but did suppress Fusari- ing. An example of poultry grazing involves the use um sp. and Sclerotium rolfsii (Bulluck 1999). Addi- of jungle fowl that pick off insects from vegetable tionally, levels of Trichoderma sp., enteric bacteria, plants without damaging fruits and graze on associ- fluorescent pseudomonad bacteria, and culturable ated weeds (Greer and Diver 2000). bacteria were greater with organic amendments than Management of soilborne pathogens, including in conventional production systems. Thus, very sus- nematodes, requires a number of carefully developed ceptible crops are problematic in an organic produc- practices for greenhouse and general nursery production system, especially on a short-term basis (i.e., < 2 tion (Diver 1998). For organic production, primary to 4 yr), and should be grown only with careful plan- management tactics include solarization, steam pas- ning and management. teurization, and use of disease-suppressive potted Polyculture is one of the prime management strat- mixtures. Preparation of these mixtures typically egies of organic farming (Altieri 1994; see Chapter 2 involves incorporating specially prepared organic for information on various types of polyculture). In amendments or compost and inoculating the composts addition to requiring fewer inputs than conventional and/or potting media with selective microbes such as monocultures do, polycultural production systems Trichoderma, Gliocladium, Bacillus spp., and generally result in increased biodiversity in agroeco- Pseudomonas sp. (Diver 1998). Plant-growth and systems. In contrast, monoculture often results in the health-promoting microbes, such as certain build-up of severe infestations of soil pathogens such Pseudomonas sp. and mycorrhizal fungi, also have as root fungi and/or plant parasitic nematodes. potential in this regard. Composted bark is an exam- Lists of botanicals and other pesticides for use in ple of a disease-suppressive component that may be organic production are available, including those post- added to soil mixes. Disease-suppressive bark mulched with the Final NOP Rule (Adam 2001; NOP 2002). 120 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Predators, Noncrop Soil Soil Pollinators parasites Herbivores vegetation Earthworms mesofauna microfauna

AGROECOSYSTEM BIODIVERSITY

Competition, allelopathy, Pollination, Population, Biomass Soil Decomposition, Nutrient genetic regulation, consumption, sources of structure, predation, cycling, introgression biological nutrient natural enemies, nutrient nutrient disease control cycling crop wild cycling cycling suppression relatives

Intercropping Agroforestry Rotations Cover No-tillage Composting Green Organic Windbreaks crops manuring matter addition

Figure 4.17. The components, functions, and enhancement strategies of biodiversity in agroecosystems (after Altieri 1994).

These products include insecticides such as “Neem” terms also have been used in reference to conserving (NOP, Tables 2.5 to 2.9), as well as fungicides based natural resources, protecting the environment, and on natural plant-product chemistry (see Chapter 2 for enhancing the health and safety of consumers. These lists of current biopesticides and related product quite divergent terms include alternative agriculture, availabilities). In addition, the EPA (2003) has pro- organic, regenerative, biological, ecological, biodynam- vided extensive information on labeling and registra- ic, low-input, natural, reduced input, regenerative tion of pesticide products under the NOP. agriculture, and sustainable agriculture (Gold 1999; Schaller 1991). A key development related to enhancing support Sustainable Cropping Systems and interest in agricultural sustainability has been Over the last five decades, the twofold increase in the widespread recognition that environmentally agricultural productivity on fewer acres in the Unit- sound farming practices must be profitable if they are ed States (Figure 4.16) could be viewed as evidence to be adopted. Additionally, certain synthetic chem- that U.S. agriculture is, in fact, sustainable. At the icals may be essential to ensuring sustainability of same time, however, excessive use of chemical pesti- intensive farming systems (Schaller 1991). These two cides and fertilizers as well as problems such as soil points clearly differentiate the concept sustainable erosion have many negative effects on the environ- agriculture, especially as it has developed over the last ment and often on agricultural productivity (Schaller decade, from the more input-restrictive concept of 1991). Undoubtedly, over the centuries, farmers have organic food production. As discussed earlier in this been concerned about agricultural sustainability and report (Chapter 3), new technologies such as precision have done much to achieve that goal. Yet one of the agriculture and GMOs offer much hope for the future first official federal policies addressing agricultural of a sustainable agriculture. Nevertheless, biodiver- sustainability came as a part of the Food Security Act sity in reference to cropping systems, soil biology, and of 1985, which authorized the Low-Input Sustainable pest management must be given a high priority in Agriculture (LISA) Program for research and educa- conventional as well as in organic production systems tion. The LISA Program sometimes resulted in con- (Altieri 1994; CAST 1999; Ingham et al. 1985). Dur- fusion, with certain parties suggesting that external ing the last 14 yr, the USDA’s Sustainable Agricul- inputs of pesticides and fertilizers eventually should ture Research and Education Program, including its be eliminated in agriculture production. Many other range of regional research and educational projects, Crop Production Systems 121 has contributed much to the advancement of sustain- Gold (1999) has provided a compilation of various def- able agriculture and to the understanding of soil initions and concepts related to sustainable agriculture. health (Magdoff and van Es 2000). In the United States, one of the first definitions of sustainable agriculture was published by the Ameri- Components of Sustainable Agriculture can Society of Agronomy in 1989: “A sustainable ag- The goals for sustainable agriculture can be cate- riculture is one that, over the long term, enhances gorized in terms of four conceptual themes. These environmental quality and the resource base on which include (1) farming and natural resources; (2) plant agriculture depends; provides for basic human food production practices; (3) animal production practic- and fiber needs; is economically viable; and enhances; (4) and economic, social, and political contexts es the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole” (Feenstra, Ingels, and Campbell 1997). Stewardship (p. 3) (Norman et al. 2002). Benbrook (1991), in dis- of land and natural resources, which involves main- cussing basic concepts and operational definitions, taining and enhancing these crucial resources for the concludes as follows: “Sustainable agriculture, which long term, is essential for sustainable agriculture. A is a goal rather than a distinct set of practices, is a systems approach requires an understanding of sus- system of food and fiber production that tainability and provides tools for exploring the many 1. improves the underlying productivity of natural interconnections between farming and other environ- resources and cropping systems so that farmers mental facets (Feenstra, Ingels, and Campbell 1997). can meet increasing levels of demand in concert The overall system thus encompasses individual farm with population and economic growth; and local ecosystems as well as communities affected 2. produces food that is safe, wholesome, and nutri- locally and globally by farming. From the systems tious, and that promotes human well-being; perspective, the consequences of farming operations and practices on the environment as well as on hu- 3. ensures an adequate net farm income to support man communities must be considered. The systems an acceptable standard of living for farmers while approach also requires an interdisciplinary approach also underwriting the annual investments need- to research and education and solicits input from farm ed to improve progressively the productivity of workers, consumers, policymakers, researchers, and soil, water, and other resources; and teachers. 4. complies with community norms and meets social Sullivan (2001) concluded that sustainable agricul- expectations.” (p. 3) ture has much to gain from holistic management, in- Norman et al. (2002) concluded that the term sus- cluding a strategy for driving decisions that reflect tainable agriculture refers to an integrated system of natural functions and ensure that farming remains plant and animal production practices applied in a sustainable. Four key natural processes discussed by site-specific manner, with these long-term objectives: Sullivan include water cycle, mineral cycle, biodiver- (1) to satisfy human food and fiber needs; (2) to en- sity, and energy flow. Like natural ecosystems, land- hance environmental quality and the natural resource scapes with adequate ground cover or plants give rise base toward which the agricultural economy depends; to minimal run-off and soil erosion. Similarly, min- (3) to make the most efficient use of nonrenewable erals are wasted minimally when cycled through the resources and on-farm resources and to integrate, biological system, as in the movements from micro- where appropriate, natural biological cycles and con- organisms to soil, plants, animals, and back to soil trols; (4) to sustain the economic viability of farm op- (Barker and Koenning 1998; Ferris, Venette, and Lau erations; and (5) to enhance the quality of life for farm- 1996; Ingham et al. 1985). Sustainable farming op- ers and society as a whole. These five components of erations should use this natural mineral cycle and the official definition of sustainable agriculture, which minimize off-farm purchase of minerals. The third were authorized under the 1990 farm bill, emphasize natural process, biodiversity, although comparative- productivity, quality of environment, efficient use of ly complex, is crucial to sustainable agriculture. Crop nonrenewable resources, viability of economy, and rotation is a key step toward increasing biodiversity quality of life (Norman et al. 2002). Emphasis is on on any farm. In addition to stabilizing the system, the long term for all components. Either exploitation enhanced biodiversity also limits problems related to of any nonrenewable resource such as groundwater plant pests (e.g., weeds, insects, and various patho- or excessive use of fossil fuels would result in a farm’s gens) (Altieri 1994; CAST 1999). A fourth natural being considered nonsustainable in the long term. process involves the flow of energy from the sun 122 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies through the biological system (Sullivan 2001). When limit economic and production risks. soils are bare, no sunlight is converted into energy by plants; when two or more crops are grown per year, solar energy collection is maximized. Cropping sys- Outlook tems including two or more types of plants increase Emerging concepts and technologies related to leaf area and thereby capture more energy from the IPM, organic farming, and sustainable agriculture sun than systems including a single type of plant do. will require new perspectives for research, teaching, outreach, and production agriculture. This outlook will include a “systems approach” to food, an approach Integrated Pest Management and that traditionally has not been considered. For ex- Sustainable Agriculture ample, the benefits of cropping systems’ increasing Integrated pest management, including pest man- levels of soil organic matter will extend beyond the agement practices preventing damage to the environ- build-up of microbes suppressing plant pathogens. ment, is an essential component of sustainable agri- Related soil carbon sequestration can help minimize culture. The original IPM concepts were conceived projected global increases of atmospheric carbon di- with one of the goals’ being the development of EBPM oxide (CAST 2000). Furthermore, deployment of ecol- practices (Kennedy and Sutton 2000; Rabb and Guth- ogy-based cropping and IPM practices can contribute rie 1970). Over the last 30 yr, IPM programs have to long-term restoration ecology by facilitating recov- resulted in a decline in pesticide use on cotton, but, ery of degraded lands (Dobson, Bradshaw, and Bak- until recently, overall pesticide use continued to in- er 1997). To achieve the ecologic goals of sustainable crease on most crops. Because of the continuing reli- agriculture, practices for crop and pest management ance on crop pesticides, emphasis on deployment of need to be directed at (1) suppressing incidence and systems relatively committed to EBMPs has increased intensity of a wide range of crop pests, (2) increasing greatly in recent years (Altieri 1994; Boland and soil organic matter, and (3) enhancing soil and crop Kuykendall 1998; Kennedy and Sutton 2000; NRC health. Cropping systems that include rotations of 1996). Research and experience in the United States primary crops with cover crops and green manure and Europe have shown that IPM/integrated cropping crops contribute much to the biodiversity of soil mi- systems can control pests effectively and can contrib- croflora and microfauna. Specific cropping systems ute to the build-up of beneficial organisms and to the as well as cover crops must mesh with the require- suppression of soilborne pests. For example, popula- ments of the primary crop and, of course, the farmer. tions of cyst and stem nematodes on cereals were sup- Intensive long-term research projects focusing on the pressed more effectively by an integrated farming many facets of conventional and alternative cropping system with altered tillage and sowing techniques systems, such as research projects in California (with a clover cover crop), fertilization, organic ma- (Drinkwater et al. 1995; Ferris, Venette, and Lau nure, and decreased pesticide applications than by a 1996; Madden 1992), Michigan (Cavigelli et al. 2000), conventional production system (El Titi and Ipach and other states (Fernandez-Cornejo and Jans 1999; 1989). In a related study, earthworms constituted Lipson 1997; NRC 1996) and countries (El-Titi and 17.6% of total biomass in an integrated cropping sys- Ipach 1989; Zwart et al. 1994), will contribute much tem but were completely absent in a conventional to the sustainability of food production in the United system (Zwart et al. 1994). Protozoa also were favored States. An extensive list of books and other resourc- by the integrated system. es on sustainable agriculture is available through the An aim of this section has been to emphasize the Sustainable Agriculture Network of Burlington, Ver- benefits of integrating practices that have been dis- mont (see Magdoff and van Es 2000). cussed in much greater detail in Chapters 2 and 3 and throughout Chapter 4 itself. Although much progress has been made in developing sustainable cropping systems, flexibility is essential in the initial choice of Appendix A. Abbreviations and IPM tactics during the transition from conventional Acronyms to sustainable systems (Hall and Kuepper 1997). a. acre When pest species fluctuate greatly and cause crop losses until equilibrium with natural antagonists has Bt Bacillus thuringiensis been effected, pesticide use often is needed to mini- EBPM ecologically based pest management mize economic losses. Crop insurance also can help EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Crop Production Systems 123

GIS geographic information system feed additives; or genetically modified organisms GMO genetically modified organism that are bred by means of genetic engineering GPS global positioning system techniques. Organic production. Process whereby nonchemi- IFPM integrated forest pest management cal inputs conform to organic standards and re- IPM integrated pest management quirements. IR–2 Interregional Project 2 Pest management approach. Process whereby one LISA low-input sustainable agriculture or more chemical inputs are used in response to NOP National Organic Program changes in pest pressure and environmental conditions. NOSB National Organic Standards Board Scouting. Pest surveillance. OFPA Organic Food Production Act Second-level IPM. The optimization of strategies SCN soybean cyst nematode for all classes of pests. SPB southern pine beetle Sustainable agriculture. An agricultural method t ton is one that, over the long term, enhances environmental quality and resource base on which agri- UC University of California culture depends; provides the basic human-food USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture and -fiber needs; is economically viable; and en- wt weight hances the quality of life for farmers and society yr year as a whole. Third-level IPM. The integration of all aspects of crop production. Trap-out techniques. Use of general area, phero- Appendix B. Glossary mone-baited insect traps. Action threshold. The level above which manage- Trap-tree techniques. Use of bait in selected trees ment activity takes place to prevent effects such to attract insects, followed by subsequent destruc- as mortality and/or growth reduction. tion of insects and infested trees. Biologically based approaches. Processes whereby chemical inputs occasionally are used, when needed, to decrease pest populations below eco- Literature Cited nomic injury levels. Economically optimal rotation age. The age max- Adam, K. 2001. Suppliers of organic and/or non-GE seeds and imizing net present value. plants: Horticulture resource list, February, (13 June 2002) Agnello, A., J. Kovach, J. Nyrop, H. Reissig, D. Rosenberger, and Entomopathogens. Any parasite (bacteria, fungi, W. Wilcox. 1999. Apple IPM: A guide for sampling and man- nematodes, viruses, etc.) that attacks and induc- aging major apple pests in New York State. Publication Num- es disease in insects. ber 207. New York State Integrated Pest Management Pro- Field corn. Corn grown for feed grain. gram, Geneva. First-level IPM. The use of multiple integrated tac- Alagarswamy G., P. Singh, G. Hoogenboom, S. P. Wani, P. Pathak, and S. M. Virmani. 2000. Evaluation and application of the tics to manage a single class of pest. CROPGRO-Soybean simulation model in a Vertic Inceptisol. Integrated control. Use of the appropriate combi- Agric Syst 63:19–32. nation of technologies to ensure economically ef- Alexander, S. A. 1989. Annosus root disease hazard rating, de- ficient control while minimizing adverse effects on tection, and management strategies in the southeastern Unit- the forest ecosystem. ed States. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep 116:111–116. Allen, D. C. 1994. Healthy forestry—Healthy forests: A balanc- Integrated management. The simultaneous con- ing act. J For 92:60. sideration of all potential pests during IFPM pro- Alston, D. G., J. R. Bradley, Jr., D. P. Schmitt, and H. D. Coble. gram development. 1991. Response of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidotera: Noctuidae) Organic. A labeling term denoting products pro- populations to the canopy development in soybean as influenced duced under the authority of the Organic Foods by Heterodera glycines (Nematoda: Heteroderidae) and annual weed population densities. J Econ Entomol 84:267–276. Production Act. Alston, D. G., D. P. Schmitt, J. R. Bradley, and H. D. Coble. 1993. Organic farming. A production system that avoids Multiple interactions in soybean: Effects on Heterodera glycines or largely excludes synthetically produced fertil- egg populations. J Nematol 25:42–50. izers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock Altieri, M. A. 1994. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroec- 124 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

osystems. Food Products Press, an Imprint of the Haworth Development of weed IPM: Levels of integration for weed man- Press, Inc., New York. agement. J Crop Prod 2:239–267. Anderson, M. and R. Magleby (eds.). 1997. Agricultural resourc- Carroll, B. N. 2000. Development in transition: Crop protection es and environmental indicators, 1996–97. Agricultural Hand- and more. Pp. 339–354. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton book Number 172. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Depart- (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Manage- ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ment—Concepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, Avery, D. T. 1995. Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming. Hudson Cavero, J., R. E. Plant, C. Shennan, D. B. Friedman, J. R. Will- Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana. iams, J. R. Kiniry, and V. M. Benson. 1999. Modeling nitrogen Bajwa, W. I. 2000. Database of IPM Resources, August 7, (13 June 2002) Sys 60:123–135. Baker, F. A., D. L. Verbyla, C. S. Hodges, Jr., and E. W. Ross. 1993. Cavigelli, M. A., S. R. Deming, L. K. Probyn, and D. R. Mutch (eds.). Classification and regression tree analysis for assessing haz- 2000. Michigan field crop pest and ecology management. Mich- ard of pine mortality caused by Heterobasidion annosum. Plant igan State University Extension Bulletin E–2704. Extension, Dis 77:136–139. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Barker, C. W. and G. M. Barker. 1998. Generalist entomopatho- Center for Integrated Pest Management. 2002. Homepage, (13 June 2002) land use impacts on Waikato soils. New Z J Ecol 22:189–196. Center for Integrated Plant Systems. 2002. Homepage, (13 June 2002) systems for nematode management. Annu Rev Phytopathol Consortium for Integrated Crop Protection. 2002. Homepage, 36:165–205. (13 June 2002) Bawden, R. J. 1991. Systems approaches to agricultural develop- Cook, R. J. and R. J. Veseth. 1991. Wheat Health Management. APS ment: The Hawksbury experience. Agric Sys 40:153–176. Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. Benbrook, C. M. 1991. Introduction. Pp. 110. In Sustainable Cornell Fruit Information Page. 2002. Homepage, Agricultural Research and Education in the Field. National (15 January 2003) Academy Press, National Resource Council, Washington, D.C. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1999. Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth, III, J. M. Halloran, M. K. Hansen, and Benefits of Biodiversity. Task Force Report Number 133. Coun- S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. Con- cil for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. sumers Union, Yonkers, New York. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2000. Berti, A., C. Dunan, M. Sattin, G. Zanin, and P. Westra. 1996. A Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils to Help Mitigate Global new approach to determine when to control weeds. Weed Sci Warming. Issue Paper Number 14. Council for Agricultural 44:496–503. Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. Biggs, A. R. 2002. Kearneysville Tree Fruit and Education Cen- Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2003. ter. Homepage, (13 June 2002) cil for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. Billings, R. F. and C. M. Bryant. 1982. Southern pine beetle field Davis, W., W. Shortle, and A. Shigo. 1980. Potential hazard rat- guide for hazard rating, prevention and control. Circular 259. ing system for fir, Abies balsamea, and red spruce, Picea rubens, Texas Forest Service, College Station. 10 pp. infested with budworm Charistoneura fumiferana using cam- Bland, W. L. 1999. Toward integrated assessment in agriculture. bial electrical resistance in northern Maine, New Hampshire, Agric Sys 60:157–167. and Vermont. Can J For Res 10:541–544. Boland, G. J. and L. D. Kuykendall (eds.). 1998. Plant-Microbe Diver, S. 1998. Disease suppressive potting mixes: Pest manage- Interactions and Biological Control. Marcel Dekker Incorpo- ment technical note. Appropriate technology transfer to rural rated, New York. areas, June, Boyce, M. S. and A. Haney (eds.). 1997. Ecosystem Management: (13 June 2002) Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale Dobson, A. P., A. D. Bradshaw, and A. J. M. Baker. 1997. Hopes University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. for the future: Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Branham, S. J. and G. D. Hertel (eds.). 1984. Proceedings of the Science 277:515–522. Integrated Forest Pest Management Symposium. Continuing Drinkwater, L. E., D. K. Letourneau, F. Workneh, A. H. C. van Education, University of Georgia, Athens. 281 pp. Bruggen, and C. Shennan. 1995. Fundamental differences be- Bridges, D. C. 1994. Impacts of weeds on human endeavors. Weed tween conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in Cal- Technol 8:392–395. ifornia. Ecol Appl 5:1098–1112. Buhler, D. D. 1999. Expanding the context of weed management. Dunan, C. M., P. Westra, and F. D. Moore, III. 1994. A plant pro- J Crop Prod 2:1–7. cess-economic model for wild oats management in irrigated Bulluck, L. R., III. 1999. Effects of synthetic and organic soil barley. Agric Sys 45:355–368. amendments on soil biological communities, physical and chem- Dunan, C. M., P. Westra, F. Moore, and P. Chapman. 1996. Mod- ical factors, and vegetable production. PhD dissertation. North eling the effect of duration of weed competition, weed density Carolina State University, Raleigh. and weed competitiveness on seeded, irrigated onion. Weed Res Campbell, F. 2002. Invasive species, (13 June 2002) Dunan, C. M., P. Westra, and F. D. Moore, III. 1998. A plant pro- Canadian Forest Service. 2002. Integrated Pest Management at cess economic model for weed management decisions in irrigat- the Canadian Forest Service, (13 June 2002) Edmisten, K. L. 1999. 1999 cotton information. AG–417 (Revised). Cardina, J., T. M. Webster, C. P. Herms, and E. E. Regnier. 1999. Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State Univer- Crop Production Systems 125

sity, Raleigh. Hedden, R. L. and T. E. Nebeker. 1984. Integrated pest manage- Elmore, C. L. 1996. A reintroduction to integrated weed management in pine stands (0–5 years)—Insects. Pp. 39–53. In S. J. ment. Weed Sci 44: 409–412. Branham and G. D. Hertel (eds.). Proceedings of the Integrat- El Titi, A. and U. Ipach. 1989. Soil fauna in sustainable agricul- ed Forest Pest Management Symposium. Continuing Education, ture: Results of an integrated farming system at Lautenback, University of Georgia, Athens. F.R.G. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27:561–572. Heiniger, R. W. 1999. Corn production guide 1999. AG–594. Co- English-Loeb, K. 1999. Elements of New York state IPM, (13 June 2002) Raleigh. Fan, J. 1998. Field crop insect pests, (13 June 2002) ber resources for America’s future. Forest Research Report Feenstra, G., C. Ingels, and D. Campbell. 1997. What is sustain- Number 14. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, able agriculture? December, (13 June 2002) Hicks, R. R., Jr., J. E. Howard, K. G. Watterston, and J. E. Coster. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and S. Jans. 1999. Pest management in U.S. 1980. Rating forest stand susceptibility to southern pine bee- agriculture. Agricultural Handbook Number 717. Economic tle in east Texas using probability functions. For Ecol Manag Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 2:269–283. D.C. Hogmire, H. W., Jr. (ed.). 1995. Mid-Atlantic orchard monitoring Ferris, H., R. C. Venette, and S. S. Lau. 1996. Dynamics of nem- guide. Publication NRAES–75. Northeast Regional Agricul- atode communities in tomatoes grown in conventional and or- tural Engineering Service, Ithaca, New York. ganic farming systems, and their impact on soil fertility. Appl Hoitink, H. A. and P. C. Fahy. 1986. Basis for the control of soil- Soil Ecol 3:161–175. borne plant pathogens with composts. Annu Rev Phytopathol Fruit and Nut Research and Information Center. 2000. Home- 24:93–114. page, July 18, Honea, C. R., T. E. Nebeker, and J. D. DeAngelis. 1987. Selection (13 June 2002) of southern pine beetle hazard rating systems for Mississippi. Garcia-Paredes, J. D., K. R. Olson, and J. M. Lang. 2000. Predict- Pp. 259–266. In Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Southern ing corn and soybean productivity for Illinois soils. Agric Sys Silvicultural Research Conference. General Technical Report 64:151–170. SE–42. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash- Ghersa, C. M., M. L. Roush, S. R. Radosevich, and S. M. Cordray. ington, D.C. 1994. Coevolution of agroecosystems and weed management. Honea, C. R., T. E. Nebeker, and T. J. Straka. 1987. Economic BioScience 44:85–94. evaluation of seven southern pine beetle hazard rating systems. Gill, S., D. L. Clement, and E. Dutky. 1999. Pests and Diseases of J Environ Manage 24:259–266. Herbaceous Perennials. Ball Publishing, Batavia, Illinois. Ingham, R. E., J. A. Trofymow, E. R. Ingham, and D. C. Coleman. Gold, M. V. 1999. Sustainable agriculture: Definitions and terms, 1985. Interactions of bacteria, fungi, and their nematode graz- September, (13 June 2002) 55:119–140. Görres, J. F., M. J. Dichiaro, J. B. Lyons, and F. A. Amador. 1997. Iowa Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 2000. Iowa agricultural Spatial and temporal patterns of soil biological activity in a for- statistics. Iowa Department of Agricultural Statistical Report- est and an old field. Soil Biol Biochem 30:219–230. ing Service, Des Moines. Gray, M. 2001. Integrated pest management, (13 June 2002) www.extension.iastate.edu/ pages/ grain> (13 June 2002) Green, D. L. 2002. Pollination homepage, (13 June 2002) gous arthropod pests in temporally unstable cropping systems. Greer, L. and S. Diver. 1999. Integrated pest management for Annu Rev Entomol 45:467–493. greenhouse crops: Pest management systems guide, January, Kennedy, G. G. and T. B. Sutton (eds.). 2000. Emerging Technol- (13 June 2002) ogies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Greer, L. and S. Diver. 2000. Organic greenhouse vegetable pro- Implementation. APS Press, American Phytopathological So- duction: Horticulture systems guide, January, (13 June 2002) Kessler, B. L., R. C. Heller, and J. S. Hard. 1981. A demonstra- Haack, R. A., K. R. Law, V. C. Mastro, H. S. Ossenbruggen, and B. tion for hazard rating susceptibility of stands to Douglas-fir J. Raimo. 1997. New York’s battle with the Asian long-horned tussock moth defoliation on the Paluse Ranger District: Prob- beetle. J For 95:11–15. ability of defoliation. Report 81–88. U.S. Department of Agri- Hall, B. and G. Kuepper. 1997. Making the transition to sustain- culture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 45 pp. able farming: Fundamentals of sustainable agriculture, March, Ku, T. T., J. M. Sweeney, and V. B. Shelburne. 1980. Site and stand (13 June 2002) conditions associated with southern pine beetle Dendroctonous Hammond, R. B. 1996. Soybean insect IPM, January 25, (13 June 2002) South J Appl For 4:103–106. Hammond, R. B., R. A. Higgins, T. P. Mack, L. P. Pedigo, and E. J. Kushmauel, R. J., M. D. Cain, C. E. Rowell, and R. L. Porterfield. Bechinski. 1991. Soybean pest management. Pp. 341–472. In 1979. Stand and site conditions related to southern pine bee- D. Pimental (ed.). CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Ag- tle susceptibility. For Sci 25:656–664. riculture. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Landis, D. A., S. D. Wratten, and G. M. Gurr. 2000. Habitat man- Hartman, G. L., J. B. Sinclair, and J. C. Rupe (eds.). 1999. Com- agement to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in ag- pendium of Soybean Diseases. 4th ed. APS Press, The Ameri- riculture. Annu Rev Entomol 45:175–201. can Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Langdon, K., C. Parker, M. Windham, S. Powell, and K. Johnson. 126 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

1991. A preliminary hazard rating for dogwood anthracnose in pest management. Annu Rev Entomol 43:471–491. the Southern Appalachians. USDA For Serv South Rep R8–PR National Academy of Sciences. 1975. Pest Control: An Assessment 20:34–38. of Present and Alternative Technologies. Vol. IV. Printing and Liebman, M. 2001. Weed management: A need for ecological ap- Publishing Office, Washington, D.C. 170 pp. proaches. Pp. 1–39. In M. Liebman, C. L. Mohler, and C. P. National Organic Program (NOP). 2002. Homepage, (13 June 2002) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. National Potato Council. 2002. The national IPM protocol for po- Liebman, M. and E. R. Gallandt. 1997. Many little hammers: tatoes, (13 June 2002) Ecological management of crop-weed interactions. Pp. 291–343. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Ecologically Based Pest In L. E. Jackson. Ecology in Agriculture. Academic Press, New- Management: New Solutions for a New Century. National Acad- York. emy Press, Washington, D.C. Liebman, M., C. L. Mohler, and C. P. Staver. 2001. Ecological Man- Norman, D., R. Janke, S. Freyenberger, B. Schurle, and H. Kok. agement of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Defining and implementing sustainable agriculture (13 Cambridge, UK. June 2002) Kells, K. Howatt, and P. Westra. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea Oak, S. W. 1985. Adaptation of littleleaf disease hazard rating mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relation- for use in forest management in South Carolina National For- ships. Weed Sci 44:309–313. ests. USDA For Serv SO Gen Tech Rep 56:246–251. Lipson, M. 1997. Searching for the “O-Word”: Analyzing the USDA Ohlendorf, B. L. P. and J. K. Clark. 1999. Integrated pest man- current research information system for pertinence to organic agement for apples and pears. 2nd ed. Publication 3340. Divi- farming. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, sion of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Cali- California. fornia, Oakland. Little, C. E. 1995. The Dying of the Trees: The Pandemic in Amer- Pedigo, L. P. 1999. Entomology and Pest Management. 3rd ed. ica’s Forests. Viking, New York. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Lorio, P. L. and R. A. Sommers. 1981. Use of available resource Posner, J. L., M. D. Casler, and J. O. Baldock. 1995. The Wiscon- data to rate stands for southern pine beetle risk. Pp. 75–78. In sin integrated cropping systems trial: Combining agroecology Proceedings of the Hazard-Rating Systems in Forest Manage- with production agronomy. Am J Altern Agric 10:98–107. ment Symposium. General Technical Report WO–27. Forest Prokopy, R. J., J. L. Mason, M. Christie, and S. E. Wright. 1996. Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Arthropod pest and natural enemy abundance under second- Lynch, S., D. Sexson, C. M. Benbrook, M. Carter, J. Wyman, P. level versus first-level integrated pest management practices Nowak, and J. Barzen. 2000. Accelerating Industry-Wide Tran- in apple orchards: A four-year study. Agric Ecosys Environ sition to Reduced-Risk Pest Management Systems: A Case Study 57:35–47. of the Wisconsin Potato Industry Choices. American Agricultural Rabb, R. L. and F. E. Guthrie (eds.). 1970. Concepts of Pest Man- Economics Association, Ames, Iowa. agement. North Carolina State University, Raleigh. MacRae, I. V. 1996. IPM resources on the World Wide Web, Jan- Renner, K. A., S. M. Swinton, and J. J. Kells. 1999. Adaptation and uary 17, (13 June 2002) igan. Weed Sci 47:338–348. MacRae, I. V. 1998. Site specific IPM, January 23, (13 June 2002) furan and thiabendazole on incidence of pitch canker of loblol- Madden, J. P. 1992. Beyond Pesticides: Biological Approaches to ly pine. Plant Dis 77:166–169. Pest Management in California. ANR Publications, University Rust, M. 1988. White pine blister rust hazard rating: An expert of California, Oakland. systems approach. AI Appl Nat Resour Manage 2:47–50. Magdoff, F. and H. van Es. 2000. Building Soils for Better Crops. Sader, S. A. and W. F. Miller. 1976. Development of a risk rating 2nd ed. Sustainable Agriculture Network, Burlington, Vermont. system for southern pine beetle infestations in Copiah County, Main, C. E., T. Keever, G. J. Holmes, and J. M. Davis. 2001. Fore- Mississippi. NASA Remote Sens Earth Res 5:277–294. casting long-range transport of downy mildew spores and plant Schaller, N. 1991. Background and status of the low-input sus- disease epidemics, April 25, (13 June 2002) culture Research and Education in the Field. National Acade- Mason, G. N. and C. M. Bryant. 1984. Establishing southern pine my Press, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. beetle hazard from aerial stand data and historical records. For Schweizer, E. E., P. Westra, and D. W. Lybecker. 1994. Control- Sci 30:375–382. ling weeds in corn (Zea mays) rows with an in-row cultivator Merrigan, K. A. 2000. Politics, policy, and IPM. Pp. 497–504. In versus decisions made by a computer model. Weed Sci 42:593– G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies 600. for Integrated Pest Management—Concepts, Research and Im- Schweizer, E. E., P. Westra, and D. W. Lybecker. 1998. Seedbank plementation. APS Press, The American Phytopathological and emerged annual weed populations in corn (Zea mays) fields Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. in Colorado. Weed Technol 12:243–247. Merwin, I. A., S. K. Brown, D. A. Rosenberger, D. R. Cooley, and Schweizer, E. E., L. J. Wiles, D. W. Lybecker, and P. Westra. 1994. L. P. Berkett. 1994. Scab-resistant apples for the northeast- Bioeconomic modeling for weed management decisions in crops. ern USA: New prospects and old problems. Plant Dis 78:4–10. Proc Great Plains Agric Council Bull 150:135–141. Mjelde, J. W. and H. S. J. Hill. 1999. The effect of the use of im- Senft, D. 1997. With IPM, bigger areas are better. Agric Res 45:4– proved climate forecasts on variable costs, input usage, and 8. production. Agric Sys 60:213–225. Strand, L. L. and J. K. Clark. 1999. Integrated pest management Myers, J. H., A. Savoie, and E. van Randen. 1998. Eradication and for stone fruits. Publication 3389. Division of Agriculture and Crop Production Systems 127

Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland. VanGessel, M. J., E. E. Schweizer, D. W. Lybecker, and P. Westra. Sudduth, K. A., J. W. Hummel, and S. J. Birrell. 1997. Sensors 1995b. Compatibility and efficiency of in-row cultivation for for site-specific management. Pp. 183–210. In J. J. Pierce and weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 9:754– E. J. Sadler (eds.). The State of Site Specific Management for 760. Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wiscon- VanGessel, M. J., L. Wiles, E. E. Schweizer, and P. Westra. 1995c. sin. Weed control efficacy and pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tol- Sullivan, P. July 2001. Holistic management: A whole-farm deci- erance to early season mechanical weeding. Weed Technol sion making framework: Fundamentals of sustainable agricul- 9:531–534. ture, (13 June VanGessel, M. J., E. E. Schweizer, R. G. Wilson, L. J. Wiles, and 2002) P. Westra. 1998. Impact of timing and frequency of in-row Sutton, T. B. 1996. Changing options for the control of deciduous cultivation for weed control in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). fruit tree diseases. Annu Rev Phytopathol 34:527–547. Weed Technol 12:548–554. Swanton, C. J. and S. D. Murphy. 1996. Weed Science beyond the VanKirk, J. R. 1998. Database of 1995 statewide IPM needs as- weeds: The role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agro- sessments for the Northeast Region, November 20, (13 Tainter, F. H. and F. A. Baker. 1996. Principles of Forest Pathol- June 2002) ogy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, New York. Veseth, R. 1995. Cropping systems approach to crop health man- Taylor, C. R. and R. Rodriguez-Kábana. 1999a. Optimal rotation agement in conservation tillage, of peanuts and cotton to manage soil-borne organisms. Agric (13 June 2002) Sys 60:57–68. Washington State University (WSU). 2002. About us, April 4, Taylor, C. R. and R. Rodriguez-Kábana. 1999b. Population dynam- (13 June ics and crop yield effects of nematodes and white mold in pea- 2002) nuts, cotton and velvet beans. Agric Sys 59:177–191. Watkins, G. M. (ed). 1981. Compendium of Cotton Diseases. APS Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center. 2002. Homepage, June Press, The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Min- 11, (13 June 2002) nesota. University of California. 2003. Statewide Integrated Pest Man- Webster, T. M. and H. D. Coble. 1997. Changes in the weed spe- agement Program. UC IPM Online, (30 January 2003) Weed Technol 11:308–317. University of Massachusetts Bookstore. 2002. Links, (13 June 2002) in North America. Annu Rev Entomol 29:435–470. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Integrated pest White, D. G. (ed.). 1999. Compendium of Corn Diseases. 3rd ed. management: Reduced chemical use protects yields and the APS Press, The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, environment, April, (13 June 2002) Wilson, C. L. and M. E. Wisniewski (eds.). 1994. Biological Con- U.S. Department of Agriculture–Cooperative State Research, Ex- trol of Postharvest Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables: Theory tension, and Education (USDA–CSREES). 2002. Plant and and Practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. animal systems, January 24, (13 Wrather, J. A., A. Y. Chambers, J. A. Fox, W. F. Moore, and G. L. June 2002) Sciumbato. 1995. Soybean disease loss estimates for the south- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Labeling of ern United States, 1974 to 1994. Plant Dis 79:1076–1079. pesticide products under the National Organic Program (NOP), Zhang, W., D. Y. Han, W. A. Dick, K. R. Davis, and H. A. J. Hoitink. (21 January 2003) acquired resistance in cucumber and arabidopsis. Phytopathol VanGessel, M. J., J. Schroeder, and P. Westra. 1998. Compara- 88:450–455. tive growth and development of four spurred anoda (Anoda cris- Zwart, K. B., J. Bloem, S. L. G. E. Burgers, L. A. Bouman, L. Brus- tata) accessions. Weed Sci 46:91–98. saard, G. Lebbink, W. A. M. Didden, J. C. Y. Marinissen, J. J. VanGessel, M. J., E. E. Schweizer, K. A. Garrett, and P. Westra. Vreeken-Buys, and P. C. de Ruiter. 1994. Population dynam- 1995a. Influence of weed density and distribution on corn (Zea ics in the below-ground food webs in two different agricultural mays) yield. Weed Sci 43:215–218. systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 51:187–198. 128 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

5 Rangeland and Pasture

Many noxious weeds and other pests were intro- are great; applications, therefore, are limited to the duced as peoples from around the world settled short term. throughout what is now the United States (Sheley and Long-term weed control goals should focus on the Petroff 1999). Weed seeds often were inadvertently establishment of natural competitors and, when need- introduced through the planting of contaminated crop ed, the introduction of highly competitive and desir- and ornamental plant seeds, and certain deliberate- able perennial plants. Although demands change over ly introduced plants, including ornamentals, eventu- time, in the past this approach has challenged the ally escaped and became weeds. The introduction of system. Replacement plants must be managed by weeds and other pests into areas devoid of natural methods providing sustainable, competitive produc- enemies and diseases resulted in rapid population tion year after year. Most weed problems will return expansions and in numerous negative economic and if desirable competition is destroyed by disturbance environmental effects that have persisted to this day. or overgrazing (McNeel et al. 1999; Sheley and Petroff Such introductions now are minimized by federal and 1999). The ideal management strategy for insect and state regulations and related activities (see Chapter pathogen control in these vast but often low-value 2, Section on Invasive pests for details). agroecosystems is the use of resistant or tolerant cul- In 1997, invasive rangeland weeds on federally tivars of grasses and legumes. Regrettably, the avail- owned land were estimated to cover more than 17 ability of varieties with broad-spectrum pest resis- million acres (a.) and to be increasing at 14%/year (yr) tance is quite limited. (BLM 1996). At this rate, 100 a. infested today could increase to 231 a. in 5 yr and to 443 a. in 10 yr. The infestation of federal land with invasive, noxious Weed Management weeds thus could extend over approximately 75 million a. by 2007. Anderson and Magleby (1997) esti- Education and Awareness mated that approximately 589 million a. of pasture and rangeland exist in the contiguous United States. Individuals developing an interest in and an un- The challenge is to develop effective weed manage- derstanding of weeds in small or large areas must ment strategies for containing or decreasing pest pop- take the first steps in the weed management educa- ulations, to limit introduction of new pest species, and tional process. These individuals understand the life to minimize economic and ecologic effects of pests and cycles of weeds, the reproductive techniques used for their associated treatments. their propagation, the life expectancy of seeds in the Currently, the most effective pest management soil, the ability of specific weeds to grow and to repro- strategies are those incorporating multiple control duce in a variety of geographic and ecologic zones, and methodologies (e.g., physical, mechanical, chemical, the manner of weed spreading. Researchers study- and biological controls) as well as public awareness ing invasive weeds are aware of their negative effects campaigns, interspecific perennial plantings, and on the flora and the fauna of an area and can identify native perennial rehabilitation (Sheley and Petroff those plants causing health problems for animals and/ 1999). The control of invasive weeds and other pests or people. must be viewed as a long-term commitment. This is The educational process includes learning about crucial to the attainment of an acceptable pest-popu- laws and regulations governing weeds in each state, lation level sustainable by the natural system. Rap- county, and town. Nationally, the Federal Noxious id, often resource-intensive, responses to pest prob- Weed Act lists weeds regulated by the U.S. Depart- lems can slow the rate of increase of a weed or even ment of Agriculture’s Plant Protection and Quaran- prevent its spread. The financial resources required tine Program. Like the federal government, each to sustain such a level of treatment, however, typically state has developed laws and regulations designating

128 Rangeland and Pasture 129 specific management practices for various weeds. 4. feeding animals certified weed-free hay and grain Counties and cities can specify the weeds to be regu- at least 3 weeks before introducing them into a lated by city weed-control districts or county govern- weed-free area; ments. Each level of government emphasizes pro- 5. inspecting recreational vehicles before permitting grams including identification, prevention, early them to enter weed-free areas; detection, eradication, small-infestation management, and, finally, large-infestation management. In 6. educating land users about weed species that addition to state, county, and city regulators, federal should be eliminated from an area; agencies regulate invasive weed management on fed- 7. preventing noxious weeds from producing seed, eral lands. In the United States, more than one-third especially along roadways or streams; and of all western lands are owned and managed by the 8. quarantining domesticated animals that may car- federal government. These lands include national for- ry weed seeds within their digestive system, be- ests, national wildlife refuges, national parks, feder- fore introducing them into weed-free areas. al reservations, and public lands managed by the Prevention is the least costly method of invasive weed Bureaus of Land Management and Reclamation. management. Once introductions occur, control of Throughout the western United States, federal land unwanted species can cost more than $523/a. (Taylor ownership often is intermixed with private and state and McDaniel 1998). lands. This pattern makes the management of nox- Early detection depends on identification and lo- ious weeds difficult. cation of new species in a management area. When Because weeds and other pests have no boundaries found, invasive weed species can be eliminated or based on land ownership, people are learning to co- eradicated if careful follow-through and long-term operate across federal, state, and local boundaries. monitoring methods are used. Early detection is ev- River basins or watersheds often make the best man- ery land management professional’s responsibility. agement areas. When a watershed management area All workers on the land should be educated about is put in place, upper streams usually are treated first, weed species and should monitor infestations regu- to prevent reinvasion by water-dispersed seeds. Weed larly because many hours of labor and great expense management requires a well-thought-out plan and can be averted when early detection and prevention proactive measures for identifying and acquiring nec- methods are applied (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Fur- essary resources. thermore, new weed detection tools must be developed Land managers must be trained so that scientifi- to assist large landholders in identifying weed prob- cally based information can be transferred and used lems in remote areas. This need is especially true for effectively in invasive weed management. Within federal land managers, who often have limited re- each state are many individuals knowledgeable about sources for carrying out early weed detection pro- weeds and informed sufficiently to aid with manage- grams. Early identification and assessment of weed ment planning and project funding. Information can populations are keys to allocating resources appropri- be obtained from university research and Extension ately and to choosing the appropriate tool or combi- personnel, county weed coordinators, Extension nation of tools with which to address the problem agents, federal and state agency specialists, and oth- (Figure 5.1). er informed individuals (McNeel et al. 1999).

Weed Prevention and Early Detection Physical and Mechanical Controls Prevention is a process initiated by people aware Hoeing, hand pulling, tilling, mowing, and burn- of unwanted weed species and wishing to prepare a ing are commonplace physical and mechanical weed strategy or plan to keep species from entering certain control methods (James et al. 1991). Pulling of cer- regions. Common methods used to prevent the intro- tain weeds when the ground is wet can remove plant duction of weed seeds follow: crowns and prevent invasive plants from resprouting. 1. using certified weed-free seed, forage, or hay; Hoeing below active buds or crowns also can halt the resprouting of certain invasive weeds. These two 2. cleaning equipment before bringing it into weed- methods often are used when invasive weeds are first free areas; introduced. Tillage not only stresses the problem 3. introducing gravel or soil from certified weed-free species but can be used to prepare seed beds for new areas; desirable perennial grasses and broadleaf plants. Es- 130 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies tablishment of new perennials is usually most successful when seeds are covered properly and spaced in one-eighth-inch- to one-fourth-inch-deep soil. In areas dominated by warm-season plants such as blue grama (Boutela gracilis), tillage methods such as chis- Herbicide distribution el plowing have been used to renovate sodbound grasses and to increase cool-season grasses such as west- Figure 5.2. Components of a herbicide-wetblade mower system. ern wheatgrass. In rangeland, tillage is recommended (Source: T. D. Whitson, University of Wyoming) only to aid in the establishment or to encourage the competitiveness of perennial grasses. In certain in- computerized, regulated wet blade mower system stances, tillage actually increases invasive species (Figure 5.2) have made it possible to manage invasive populations (McNeel et al. 1999). weeds and to decrease required control levels of her- A useful tool for control of annual or biennial weeds, bicides. Such systems eliminate drift problems while mowing should be done at the flowering stage or be- applying concentrated herbicides in the stems of tar- fore seed maturity. This practice is especially effec- get species already cut by the mower (Figure 5.3) tive when expected seed viability in the soil is less (Whitson 2000). than 4 yr and infestations occur in small areas. Burning is especially useful in the control of brush Mowing and applying herbicides while using a new species (e.g., big sagebrush) whose seeds are viable

Figure 5.1. Use of self-cleaning weed screens in an irrigation Figure 5.3. Example of herbicide deposit on cut stems of system to prevent the spread of weed seeds along greasewood by means of a wetblade mower. Photo irrigation ditches. Photo courtesy of T. D. Whitson, courtesy of T. D. Whitson, University of Wyoming. University of Wyoming. Rangeland and Pasture 131 in the soil for less than 1 yr (James et al. 1991). When Methylphenoxyacetic acid is similar in activity to 2,4– seeds are viable for 2 yr or longer, burning can kill D but is much more effective against certain broad- desirable perennials and decrease competition. The leaf weeds, which can be a component of the range- lack of competition hampers invasive weed manage- land and pasture complex. ment. To help unify growth stages or to eliminate Amino acid synthesis herbicides, which prevent plant residues, plants often are burned before herbi- plants from producing one to three essential amino cides are applied. acids, are very selective (Ahrens 1994). Metsulfuron controls various rangeland broadleaf species, especially those in the mustard (Brassicaceae) family, but Chemical Controls other grass species such as fescue (Festuca spp.) and For herbicides to be acceptable on rangeland, they creeping foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus) are killed not only should provide control of invasive weeds but by metsulfuron. Trisulfuron is an effective control for also should leave perennial grasses unharmed. All many annual weeds and for certain biennials and rangeland herbicides providing selective weed control perennials in the mustard family. Glyphosate can be are classified as one of four major “modes-of-action.” used selectively in perennial rangeland grasses for The modes of action, and herbicides in each category, control of annual weeds such as downy brome. Rates follow: higher than those recommended for pastures and 1. Growth regulator herbicides—2,4-dichlo- rangelands will kill perennial grasses. Imazapic is a rophenoxy acetic acid (2,4–D) (various brands), 4- new herbicide labeled in several states. It is very se- chloro-2-methylphenoxy acetic acid (various lective and controls species such as leafy spurge (Eu- brands), dicamba (Clarity), picloram (Grazon, phorbia esula L.), houndstongue (Cynoglossum offi- Tordon, Tordon 22K), triclopyr (Remedy 4EC, cinale L.), downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.), and Garlon 3EC, 4EC), clopyralid (Transline 3EC, members of the mustard family. Cool-season grass- Curtail 2.38EC, Reclaim 3EC) es are suppressed with applications made in the spring. Therefore, imazapic is most effective as a fall- 2. Amino acid synthesis inhibitor herbicides— applied herbicide. metsulfuron (Escort 60DF), trisulfuron (Amber Herbicides that are photosynthetic inhibitors block 75DG), glyphosate (Roundup Ultra 3SC), and photosynthetic transfer of energy from sunlight. imazapic (Plateau 3EC) Tebuthiuron is labeled for selective control of big sage- 3. Photosynthesis inhibitor herbicides— brush (Artemisia tridentata L.), oak (Quercus spp.), tebuthiuron (Spike 20% G) and hexazinone (Vel- and other woody species. Application rates should be par 2EC) low and labels followed carefully to prevent cool-sea- 4. Cell-membrane disruptor herbicides— son grass damage. Hexazinone is used as a spot treat- paraquat (Gramoxone Extra 2.5S) ment in the management of certain rangeland brush species. Highly selective and causing little or no damage to Paraquat is a member of the cell membrane disrup- perennial grasses, growth regulator herbicides often tor family. It is a contact herbicide with very rapid cause unwanted damage to rangeland forbs (Ahrens action and will cause immediate desiccation of all 1994). Users must read the labels carefully regard- rangeland plants. Perennial plants store enough car- ing which species of broadleaf plants a herbicide con- bohydrate in their root systems to revegetate from the trols. In the growth regulator family, picloram is a crowns and roots. Annuals such as downy brome very effective broad-spectrum herbicide; its use is, (cheatgrass) and biennial rangeland weeds are killed nonetheless, restricted, and it should not be applied in the contact process. Though it can be a useful near surface water or on land with a shallow water method of managing unwanted annual plants germi- table. Clopyralid is especially effective for control of nating from dormant seed, a brownout process nor- the composite, or Asteraceae, family of weeds—espe- mally decreases total rangeland production (Ahrens cially knapweed and thistle species. Triclopyr is very 1994). useful in the management of unwanted brush species. The first herbicide introduced after World War II was 2,4–D, which controls annual and biennial weeds in Biological Controls early growth stages. This herbicide also can provide The use of biological control agents to control in- temporary control of perennial weeds, decreasing vasive rangeland weeds is an evolving science. Many their competitive effects during the application year. introduced weeds are major problems in the United 132 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

States but not in their native countries. Biological often is as important to success or failure as are biocontrol methods indicate how pest problems can be logical interactions (Anderson et al. 2000; Sheley and addressed by the introduction of biological agents (i.e., Petroff 1999). pathogens or natural predators from regions in which Before widespread cattle grazing, sheep and goats the invasive species originated). Biological agents were important worldwide weed controllers (James et include insects, mites, nematodes, plant pathogens, al. 1991), grazing on great amounts of broadleaf plants sheep, goats, and other natural enemies. Once a po- and being used to control plants poisonous to cattle tential biological agent is identified in a foreign coun- (e.g., groundsel [Senecio spp.] and larkspur [Delphin- try, it must undergo a rigorous screening process be- ium spp.]). Sheep generally show no ill effects upon fore being introduced into the United States. If the consuming the alkaloids found in these weed species biocontrol agent attacks nontarget plants of econom- and are much more tolerant of them than are cattle. ic or ecologic importance in the United States, then Up to half of a sheep’s diet and up to 80% of a goat’s introduction will not be permitted. Weed control is diet can consist of the invasive species leafy spurge. especially effective when more than one biological Both animals generally prefer broadleaf plants and controls for the same plant species are introduced si- woody browse to perennial grasses, which are much multaneously. Insect releases have had greater success than other types of biological controls. Current- ly in the United States, released insects have helped control the following weed species: diffuse and spotted knapweed (Centaurea diffusa and C. maculosa), yellow starthistle (C. solstitialis), leafy spurge (Eu- phorbia esula), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobae), St. Johns’ Wort (Hypericum perforatum), and Mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis) (Whitson et al. 1996). It takes 10 to 15 yr to measure the success of a new biological control program on invasive weed species. Insect and pathogen introductions made 25 to 30 yr ago (Morrison, Reckie, and Jensen 1998) on tansy ragwort and St. Johnswort in the Pacific Northwest Figure 5.4. Effectiveness of a systems approach for replacing have been remarkably successful. Earlier introduc- Russian knapweed infestation with (Bozoisky) Rus- sian wildrye, a sustainable forage species (when tions are decreasing seed production and the spread properly managed). Photos courtesy of T. D. of musk thistle in the Rocky Mountain region. Two Whitson, University of Wyoming. flea beetles released on leafy spurge in the northern United States are showing great promise, especially preferred by cattle, bison, and elk. on well-drained sites. In the future, other biocontrol Sheep and goats must be managed carefully when agents, having adapted to specific sites and weed pop- a producer concentrates them on areas with heavy ulations, may affect problem species significantly. populations of weeds. Without proper herding, posi- When weed populations expand to cover millions tive control of weedy species cannot be accomplished of acres, as many invasive rangeland species have and animal losses to predators can be great (Lym done, the search must continue to for target-specific 1998; Sheley and Petroff 1999). Removal of animals natural enemies that are, in the long run, able to con- from infested areas also must include a quarantine trol the infestation with little or no economic input. period to purge viable seeds from their digestive Releasing a biological control agent does not mean tracts. In many instances, use of domesticated un- that control will be certain, straightforward, or eco- gulates for weed control is a long-term commitment nomical. Nor does it mean that other integrated pest because most weed populations will reappear once a management (IPM) tools should not be used. Success- biological control agent is removed from a system ful weed control must include a systems approach (Figure 5.4). (McNeel et al. 1999) and a description of the proper uses of all available tools and must take into account the knowledge base and infrastructure of the pro- Plant Competition and Rehabilitation gram. The methodology used to approach a problem A vegetation inventory is necessary when determi- Rangeland and Pasture 133 nations are being made about which component of an to the site biogeographical characteristics. During the integrated system to apply to areas infested with in- last few years, much research focusing on the elimi- vasive weeds (BLM 1996). When desirable perenni- nation of various weed species and their replacement al grasses are in adequate supply in the infested un- with competitive perennial grasses has been conduct- derstory, revegetation will be unnecessary after ed according to the integrated systems approach. noxious weeds are removed. Often a herbicide appli- Areas infested with perennial species such as saltce- cation, fire, biocontrol agent, or grazing pattern dar (Tamarix spp.), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon change will shift the competitive advantage in favor repens), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), dalmatian of plant populations native to the site (Figure 5.5). toadflax (Linaria genistifolia spp. Dalmatica), and When perennial grasses do not dominate the control Canada thistle (Cirsium ravens) (Bottoms and Whit- site in the 2 or 3 yr after the removal of a noxious weed son 1998; Ferrell et al. 1998; Masters and Nissen by means of herbicides, fire, biological control, or other 1998; Taylor and McDaniel 1998; Wilson and management tactic, a revegetation program should be Kachman 1999) have been rehabilitated, and sites considered. now are sustainable when grazed appropriately. Bi- The first step in the revegetation process is to elim- ennials (e.g., musk thistle) and annuals (e.g., downy brome) also have been replaced successfully with perennial grass competitors. Additional research on replacing invasive species with mixtures of forbs, grasses, and woody vegetation is needed.

Weed Monitoring and Mapping After weed species have been found and positively identified, infested lands should be mapped and monitored carefully so that land managers can determine the direction in and the rate at which noxious weeds are spreading. Today, many data-recording methods incorporate extremely accurate global positioning and geographic information systems (Gillham, Hild, and Whitson 2001). Initial surveys establish baseline data Figure 5.5. Combination of a herbicide and proper grazing that to be used for later comparisons. Such information favor increased grass competition and sustainable weed control (left side); area on right side of fence will aid in determinations of the spread rate on vari- was grazed heavily in early spring when grasses ous ecologic and geographic areas. Weed demographic initiated new growth. Photos courtesy of T. D. predictions can be made from this information. Aeri- Whitson, University of Wyoming. al photographs and topographic maps often are used to prepare weed inventory maps (Anderson et al. 1996, inate all invasive species and any other competitive 1999). Realistic objectives should be established an- vegetation preventing the establishment of perenni- nually, and, to facilitate identification from airplanes al grass seedlings selected for a site (Whitson, Dew- or satellites, maps should be prepared when plants ey, and Stougaard 1999). Sites selected for rehabili- are in their most unique phenological stage. tation should be fairly free of rocks and should be Monitoring includes collecting baseline data for all located on terrain suitable for reseeding. plant species in a management area (Sheley and Petroff 1999) and should incorporate permanent transect data with photo point data and actual clip- Invasive Species Control and Site ping information. If information is recorded by spe- Preparation cies, land managers will be able to detect changes. A regional inventory should provide a basis on Monitoring is especially useful when land manage- which to select species for rehabilitation. Inventory ment changes (e.g., when a herbicide application should include quantity and density of all plant spe- changes, a biological weed control agent or mowing cies on a site. Vegetation can be classified as annual, is introduced, or when new weed infestations occur). biennial, or perennial (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Monitoring allows land managers to make decisions Each revegetation strategy should be specific to the based on scientifically sound evidence instead of on invasive rangeland species being replaced, as well as anecdotal or informally documented experiments. 134 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Economic and ecologic cost/benefit analyses of a spe- and early detection (Figure 5.6). cific weed-control program will be possible when pro- Rangeland management decisions should be made duction and species changes are documented on the basis of information derived from a comprehen- thoroughly. sive monitoring plan. The goal of most such plans should be the development of biologically based, integrated weed management strategies that are eco- Integrated Systems for Weed Management nomically and ecologically sustainable (Sheley and Integrated weed management is a noxious-weed Petroff 1999) (Figure 5.7). management technique combining several control methods into an integrated set of tools (BLM 1996; USDA 1998). Methods include education; prevention; Insect and Pathogen Management mechanical, physical, biological, herbicidal, and cul- Although weeds often are the dominant pest prob- tural controls; grazing; and land management. For lem in pasture and rangeland, a great number of in- example, unless the resulting ecological community sects and pathogens also affect range, forage, and is desirable and sustainable, it really does not mat- cropping systems. Most of the two pest groups gen- ter whether weeds are controlled by means of a dis- erally do not have a significant effect on overall plant

Figure 5.7. Role of revegetation in the management system to control prolific weed infestations such as this musk thistle invasion. Photos courtesy of T. D. Whitson, University of Wyoming. Figure 5.6. Components of an integrated system for rangeland weed control. (Source: B. Stump, University of Wis- productivity. Because effects can be adverse and consin.) materials and their applications costly, treatment of these pests with pesticides is usually infeasible (Cen- ease, an insect introduction, or a herbicide. If weeds ter for Integrated Pest Management 1996). Insects are controlled and the area is rehabilitated with de- such as the armyworm complex, chinch bugs, aphids, sirable plant populations, the land will regain its pro- and weevils may cause, nonetheless, sufficient defo- ductivity and, it is hoped, become a healthy and sus- liation in certain regions or states to warrant moni- tainable plant community in spite of the continuous toring and treatment. threat of invasion. When land managers have com- Imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta and S. rich- prehensive information and help neighboring produc- teri) pose a new type of pest management problem in ers become aware of invasive weed species, a plan can several regions, including 14 states in the South and be established to prevent weed introductions. When West. In addition to the many problems they cause an effective management plan is in place and weeds humans, wildlife, and even endangered species, fire become established, close observers of the range will ants can harm or kill cattle and other farm animals. find and eradicate them before they become wide- Although nearly impossible to eradicate, this fiery spread. To obviate expensive control methods for pest may be controllable by means of promising in- widespread infestations of invasive species, all man- secticides and other biocontrols. agement plans should encourage weed monitoring Leaf spot diseases, root rots, and plant parasitic Rangeland and Pasture 135 nematodes and associated disease complexes may istic relation (Bernard, Gwinn, and Griffin 1998): contribute to poor stands and/or declines of rangeland endophyte-free tall fescues grow poorly, and stands and pasture grasses and legumes. The use of disease- may decline prematurely. Endophyte infection en- resistant cultivars, where available, is the most prac- hances the growth of fescue and results in the plant’s tical management strategy for such maladies (Ber- becoming resistant to a number of associated patho- nard, Gwinn, and Griffin 1998; Pederson and gens and pests. Once the mechanism of this pest re- Quesenberry 1998). For example, Bahia grasses are sistance is understood, the development of nonpesti- resistant to most plant pathogens and insects cide pest-resistance in grasses may be facilitated. (Seedland.com 1999a). Because of associated animal toxicoses, numerous A potentially important nematode bacterium com- endophyte-free fescue varieties are available plex on certain grasses involves the foliage-attacking (Seedland.com 1999b). These grasses are not recom- nematodes Anguina spp. and the bacterium Clavi- mended for use on lawns or other recreational turf bacter toxicus (= C. rathayi). The bacterium, associ- sites, however, and their utility, even in pastures, ated with these nematodes, produces corynetoxin, warrants further evaluation (Bernard, Gwinn, and which induces convulsions in grazing animals; can be Griffin 1998). deadly to cattle and sheep (Bernard, Gwinn, and Grif- As this limited treatment of insects and pathogens fin 1998; McKay and Ophel 1993); and has killed suggests, greater research efforts are needed regard- many thousands of animals in Australia. The prob- ing IPM on grasslands. Research should be especial- lem often is encountered in annual Wimmera ryegrass ly helpful as endeavors are directed increasingly at (Lolium rigidum) and has been referred to as “annu- the development of sustainable crop and animal pro- al ryegrass toxicity” (Bernard, Gwinn, and Griffin duction systems. 1998; McKay and Ophel 1993). A similar disease complex can be important in paddocks of blown grass (Agrostis avenacea) or annual beardgrass (Polypogon Appendix A. Abbreviations and monspeliensis). The associated disease syndrome on these grasses is known colloquially as the “flood plain Acronyms staggers” (Bernard, Gwinn, and Griffin 1998). 2,4–D 2,4–dichloropenoxy acetic acid The endophytic fungi are another group of grass- a. acre associated microbes that can affect grazing animal BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management health. Although these fungal endophytes reside in many symptomless grasses and benefit their hosts, at IPM integrated pest management times they can be very detrimental to grazing animals yr year (Bernard, Gwinn, and Griffin 1998). Because of the toxicoses encountered in grazing cattle and horses, the Literature Cited endophytes Neotyphodium coenophialum on tall fescue and N. lolii on perennial ryegrass have received Ahrens, W. H. (ed.). 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Hand- much study. Some 26 million a. are planted to tall book Committee, Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, fescue, and mainly to ‘Kentucky 31,’ in the United Illinois. 352 pp. Anderson, G. L., J. H. Everitt, D. E. Escobar, N. R. Spencer, and States, and perennial ryegrass is a major forage spe- R. J. Andrasik. 1996. Mapping leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) cies in New Zealand (Bernard, Gwinn, and Griffin infestations using aerial photography and geographic informa- 1998). Although the nutrient content of endophyte- tion systems. Geocarto Int 11:81–89. infected grasses is similar to that of endophyte-free Anderson, G. L., C. W. Prosser, S. Hager, and B. Foster. 1999. grasses, animals reared on infected grasses grow poor- Change detection of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) infestations ly and may exhibit fescue toxicosis. This disease, using aerial photography and GIS. Pp. 223–230. In Proceed- ings of the 17th Biennial Workshop on Color Photography and which involves poor weight gain and reproductive and Videography in Resource Assessment, 5–7 May, 1999, American lactation problems, is a considerable economic prob- Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, lem in the United States, causing approximately $600 Maryland. million in losses annually in cattle production (Ber- Anderson, G. L., E. S. Delfosse, N. R. Spencer, C. W. Prosser, and nard, Gwinn, and Griffin 1998). Horses also are R. D. Richard. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge: An emerging success story. Pp. 15–25. In N. R. Spencer (ed.). Proceed- affected. ings of the 10th International Symposium on Biological Control In contrast to the negative effects of endophytes on of Weeds, 4–14 July, 1999, Montana State University, Bozeman. animal health, their effects on tall fescue are positive. Anderson, M. and R. Magleby (eds.). 1997. Agricultural resourc- Endophytes and tall fescue, have, in fact, a mutual- es and environmental indicators. 1996–1999. Agricultural 136 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Handbook Number 172. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. of common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) with Chryso- Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. lina hyperici and a host-specific Colletotrichum gloeosporiode- Bernard, E. C., K. D. Gwinn, and G. D. Griffin. 1998. Forage grass- si. Weed Technol 12:426–435. es. Pp. 427–454. In K. R. Barker, G. A. Pederson, and G. L. Pederson, G. A. and K. H. Quesenberry. 1998. Clovers and other Windham (eds.). Plant and Nematode Interactions. American forage legumes. Pp. 399–425. In K. R. Barker, G. A. Pederson, Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil and G. L. Windham (eds.). Plant and Nematode Interactions. Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of Ameri- Bottoms, R. M. and T. D. Whitson. 1998. A systems approach for ca, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

the management of Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Seedland.com. 1999a. Bahiagrass pastures, (23 July 2002) lands Symp 12:363–366. Seedland.com. 1999b. Fescue pastures, (23 July 2002) and pasture, July, (23 July 2002) Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Ferrell, M. A., T. D. Whitson, D. W. Koch, and A. E. Gade. 1998. Corvallis. 438 pp. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with several grass spe- Taylor, J. P. and K. C. McDaniel. 1998. Restoration of saltcedar cies. Weed technology. Integr Syst Noxious Weed Manage (Tamarix spp.)-infested flood plains on the Bosque del Apache Rangelands Symp 12:374–380. National Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technology. Integr Syst Nox- Gillham, J. H., A. L. Hild, and T. D. Whitson. 2001. Predicting ious Weed Manage Rangelands Symp 12:345–352. susceptibility of invasive species using GIS. West Soc Weed Sci U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1996. Current situation. Proc 54:58. Partners against weeds, an action plan for the Bureau of Land James, L. F., J. O. Evans, M. H. Ralphs, and R. D. Child. 1991. Management. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, Noxious Weed Management Strategies in Noxious Range Weeds. D.C. 7 pp. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Alternative Farming Lym, R. G. 1998. The biology and integrated management of leafy Systems Information Center. 1998. Alternative soil, crop, and spurge (Euphorbia esula) on North Dakota rangeland. Weed pasture management, 28 January, (23 July 2002) Symp 12:367–373. Whitson, T. 2000. Brush and noxious weed management with the Masters, R. A. and S. J. Nissen. 1998. Revegetating leafy spurge Burch Wet-Blade® Mower. West Soc Weed Sci Res Progr Rep (Euphorbia esula)-infested rangeland with native tallgrasses. 53:44. Weed technology. Integr Syst Noxious Weed Manage Range- Whitson, T. D., L. C. Burrell, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. lands Symp 12:381–390. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and R. Parker. 1996. Weeds of the West. 5th McKay, A. C. and K. M. Ophel. 1993. Toxigenic Clavibacter/An- ed. Western Society of Weed Science, Jackson, Wyoming. 630 guina associations infecting grass seedheads. Annu Rev Phy- pp. topathol 31:151–167. Whitson, T. D., S. A. Dewey, and R. Stougaard. 1999. 1999–2000 McNeel, H. A., R. R. Parsons, J. Sweaney, L. A. Vance, C. Henry, weed management handbook. Utah, Montana, and Wyoming C. McClure, J. Free, and B. Mullin. 1999. Guidelines for coor- Cooperative Extension Service, Laramie. dinated management of noxious weeds: Development of weed Wilson, R. G. and S. D. Kachman. 1999. Effect of perennial grasses management areas. U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Forest on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Control Weed Technol Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 226 pp. 13:83–87. Morrison, K. D., E. G. Reckie, and K. I. Jensen. 1998. Biocontrol Natural Areas Management 137

6 Natural Areas Management

Natural areas, or areas set aside in national and vice (NPS) and other groups, have made lists of inva- state parks or elsewhere for management of natural sive plant species occurring in natural areas (Table resources, including native and biodiverse communi- 6.1). Although having no statutory authority to pro- ties, are being invaded by nonnative plant and other hibit any species, these lists educate land managers pest species introduced since settlement of North and generally heighten awareness of the problem. America by Europeans. The movement of pests into The number of plant species listed demonstrates the forests and rangelands poses important problems but breadth of the problem: the NPS alone identifies 421 will not be addressed in detail in this chapter (See invasive species. Chapters 4 and 5). Introductions of invasive pests Passage of President Clinton’s February 3, 1999 have been both accidental (having occurred, for in- Executive Order (EO) on invasive species provided a stance, as a result of the transport of seeds attached framework for progress in the area of integrated man- to clothing) and intentional (as a result of the introduction of commercial species). The likelihood or risk that species will be transported long distances across natural barriers such as oceans and mountain ranges has increased rapidly as transportation technology has improved; with high-speed jet travel, the potential for long-distance anthropogenic introductions is limitless: in 1990, some 330 million plants were reported to have been brought into the United States through Miami International Airport alone (OTA 1993). Although not all introduced plant species become weed problems, many weeds are of foreign origin. Of the 300 weed species of the western United States, at least 36 escaped from horticulture or agriculture (OTA 1993) (Figure 6.1). The need to regulate the movement of noxious weeds was recognized in the United States with the Figure 6.1. Native to Africa, Asia, and Australia, Old World passage of the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974. But climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) is an invasive plant species that threatens natural communi- the act identifies too few weed species as noxious ties in Florida, including Everglades National Park. weeds, and federal regulation of weeds often overlooks Photo courtesy of K. Langeland, University of risks to nonagricultural areas (OTA 1993). Serious Florida. efforts to address the effects of nonindigenous invasive plants in natural areas have gained momentum agement of invasive plant species in natural areas. only recently. This EO directed federal agencies to prevent the in- Because of shortcomings in the federal regulation troduction of invasive species and to control, monitor, of weeds in natural areas, the problem is now being and restore native species to habitats affected by in- addressed by cities, counties, states, and other groups. vasive species. It established a Federal Interagency Exotic Pest Plant Councils (EPPCs), whose members Invasive Species Council, whose members include the include public land managers and academics in nat- Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Ag- ural resource departments, recently have organized riculture, Commerce, and Transportation, as well as to take the lead in addressing the problem of non- the Administrator of the Environmental Protection indiginous plant species in natural areas. State and Agency and representatives of additional federal regional EPPCs, along with the National Park Ser- agencies. The council was directed to oversee imple-

137 138 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 6.1. Numbers of invasive nonindigenous plant species occurring in natural areas of the United States, as compiled on lists by various groups

California Exotic Pest Plant Council (www.caleppc.org) A-1: Most invasive wildland pest plants; widespread 23 A-2: Most invasive wildland pest plants; regional 20 List B: Wildland pest plants of lesser invasiveness 35 Red Alert: Species with potential to spread explosively; infestation currently restricted 16

Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (www.fleppc.org) Category I: Invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives 62 Category II: Invasive exotics that have increased in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I species 60

EPA Great Lakes National Program (www.epa.gov/grtlakes/greenacres/wildones/wo29.htm) 53

Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council 42

National Park Service (www.nps.gov/plants/alien/sciname.htm) 421

Pacific Northwest Exotic Pest Plant Council (www.wnps.org/eppclist.htm) Red Alert: Great potential to spread 30 A-1: Most invasive; widespread 34 A-2: Most invasive; regional (highly to moderately invasive but still with a potential to spread) 36 B: Wildland weeds of lesser invasiveness (less aggressive) 70 Need more information 23

Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council (webriver.com/tneppc/) Rank 1: Severe threat, exotic plant species that possess characteristics of invasive species and spread easily into native plant communities and displace native vegetation; includes species that are or could become widespread in Tennessee 24 Rank 2: Significant threat, exotic species that possess some invasive characteristics, but have less impact on native plant communities; may have the capacity to invade natural communities along disturbance corridors, or to spread from stands in disturbed sites into undisturbed areas, but have fewer characteristics of invasive species than Rank 1 50 Rank 3: Lesser threat, exotic plant species that seem to principally spread and remain in disturbed corridors, not readily invading natural areas; also some agronomic weeds 47

mentation of the EO, to support field-level planning, tion) may require removal of standing plant material to identify and/or to develop international recommen- even after it has been killed if its presence increases dations, to create National Environmental Policy Act fire hazard, diminishes aesthetic appeal, or causes guidelines, to establish an impact-monitoring net- harm as it decays and falls. Control methods may work, to develop a Web-based information network, be preventive, physical, cultural, herbicidal, or and to prepare a National Invasive Species Manage- biological. ment Plan. The first such plan, “Meeting the Inva- sive Species Challenge,” was released January 18th, 2001 and is available on the Internet (USDA–NAL Management Methods for 2002). Integrated management of invasive pest plants in Invasive Weeds natural areas is difficult because of the need to minimize damage to habitats. This need for caution in Prevention natural areas results in greater expenditures of time and effort than weed management in agricultural, Many plant species considered by land managers industrial, or right-of-way settings does. Certain to be invasive in natural areas are available in nurs- types of vegetation (e.g., woody or sprawling vegeta- ery and landscape trades. For example, 24 species Natural Areas Management 139 listed as Category I invasive by the Florida Exotic Pest by which to limit the introduction of nonlisted plant Plant Council (FLEPPC) are available commercially species into the United States. (Aylsworth 1999). Prohibiting the sale of invasive species is one way to eliminate their availability. But land managers and growers do not always agree on Physical Methods the invasiveness of species, and the prohibition of a Manual Removal commercially important species tends, of course, to be unpopular with growers. Thus, only those species Although time consuming, removal by hand often that are commercially unimportant and extremely constitutes a major component of effective invasive invasive tend to be prohibited at the federal or the plant control. Seedlings and small saplings some- state level. Local governments in parts of the coun- times can be pulled from the ground, but even small try have passed ordinances that prohibit certain in- seedlings of certain plants have tenacious roots that vasive plant species not controlled at higher levels or will prevent extraction or cause plants to break at the that require removal of these species from private root collar. Plants breaking off at the ground will re- lands—for example, before building permits will be sprout; frequently, even small root-fragments left in issued. the ground do so. Thus, repeated hand pulling or fol- An alternative to legislative prohibition of sale or low-up with herbicide applications often is necessary. possession of invasive species is voluntary removal from trade. For example, the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association (FNGA) and the FLEPPC cooperated to identify 11 invasive species that were commercially available but insignificant to member nurseries. The groups now are encouraging growers to phase these species out of the market (Aylsworth 1999). The FLEPPC and the FNGA continue to work together to identify additional invasive species for phase-out of trade. Public education is important in preventing or limiting the introduction of invasive plant species into natural areas. Many plants, including volunteer introductions and deliberately introduced landscape plants that are invasive in natural areas, are found on private lands. Some invasive species also are used Figure 6.2. Specialized logging equipment is sometimes used as landscape plants on public lands. Educating the to remove invasive tree species. Photo courtesy of public not to dump yard waste containing seeds or F. Laroche, South Florida Water Management Dis- viable vegetative materials of invasive plants and to trict. eliminate invasive plants that can be spread by dispersal of seeds or spores should help prevent the Destruction of uprooted plant materials also is impor- spread of invasive plant species. tant. Stems and branches of certain species laid on In addition to minimizing the spread of invasive the ground may sprout roots, and attached seeds may plant species already present in the United States, germinate. If material cannot be destroyed by meth- preventing the introduction of new invasive species ods such as burning, it should be piled in a secure area is important; little is being done about this problem, where it can be monitored and new plants killed as however. The federal Noxious Weed Act prohibits they appear. importation of listed noxious weeds, but it is applied to too few species and, as has been pointed out, over- Mechanical Removal looks risks to nonagricultural areas (OTA 1993). One difficulty attending the addition of species to the Fed- Mechanical removal can include the use of bulldoz- eral Noxious Weed List is the lack of a mechanism for ers or specialized logging equipment to remove woody predicting invasiveness. Reichard and Campbell plants (Figure 6.2). Because disturbance of soil cre- (1996) developed a decision chart designed as an aid ates favorable conditions for regrowth from seeds and to evaluate the invasiveness of woody plants, but no root fragments and for recolonization by invasive non- procedure has been adopted and no mechanism exists native plants, intensive follow-up with other control 140 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies methods is essential after heavy equipment is used. Prescribed Burning Plans should be developed carefully beforehand for managing or replanting sites with native vegetation Fire is a normal occurrence in many ecosystems, after such removal. Mechanical removal may be in- and native species have evolved with various degrees appropriate in natural areas because of the potential of fire tolerance (Abrahamson and Abrahamson 1996; disturbance caused by heavy equipment to soils and Kozlowski and Ahlgren 1974; Menges and Kohfeldt to nontarget vegetation. 1995). Throughout much of the United States, suppression of fire during this century has altered historical plant communities such as grasslands, flat- Cultural Practices woods, and oak scrubs. As a result, the survival of Prescribed burning and water-level manipulation fire-intolerant species has been enhanced and the are cultural practices used in the management of pas- coverage of species with fire adaptations has de- tures, rangelands, and commercial forests. Some- creased. Within these communities, fire-tolerant times these same practices are appropriate for vege- woody species have lingered in smaller numbers, and tation management in natural areas (Dehaan et al. less-fire-tolerant species have replaced ephemeral 1993; Reid and Brooks 2000). One important consid- herbs (Abrahamson and Abrahamson 1996). Little is eration is the degree of degradation of the area in known about the amount, frequency, timing, or inten- question. Cultural practices may affect all aspects of sity of fire that would enhance best the historically habitat, including native species (Stanford et al. fire-tolerant plant species, and less is known about 1996). If habitat is degraded so badly that the need how such a fire management regime could be used to to decrease the number of invasive species strongly suppress invasive species most effectively. Single outweighs the importance of the success of remain- fires in areas with many years of fire suppression are ing native species, aggressive control strategies can unlikely to restore historical species composition, and be considered (Langeland and Stocker 1997). In less periodic fires in frequently burned areas do little to degraded areas, relatively careful use of integrated alter native species composition (Abrahamson and methods may be appropriate (Langeland and Stock- Abrahamson 1996). er 1997). Invasion of tree stands by exotic vines and other Land-use history is essential to any understand- climbing plants has greatly increased the danger of ing of the effects of fire and flood on plant species com- canopy (crown) fires and, thus, of mature tree deaths position. Past practices affect soil structure, organic (Pemberton and Ferriter 1998) (Figure 6.3). The add- content, seed bank (both native and invasive nonna- ed biomass of invasive plants can result in hotter fires tive species), and species composition. Although there and speed a fire’s spread to inhabited areas. In such is evidence that past farming and timber management situations, use of fire to decrease standing biomass of practices greatly influence the outcome of cultural invasive species may protect remaining plant popu- management, very little is known about the effects of lations better than no action may, although effects on specific historical practices (Langeland and Stocker nontarget native species will occur. Under these con- 1997). Similar management practices conducted in ditions, the expense of decreasing the standing bio- areas with dissimilar histories may achieve quite dif- mass of invasive plant species may be justified eco- ferent results (Duncan et al. 1999; Hedman, Grace, nomically on the basis of the savings resulting from and King 2000). Even less is known about the effects subsequent fire suppression. of invasive plants entering these communities or In general, fire can be used to suppress plant about the subsequent effects of management on al- growth and even to kill certain non-fire-tolerant tered communities (Langeland and Stocker 1997). plants (Glitzenstein, Platt, and Streng 1995; Menges An understanding of the reproductive biology of and Kohfeltd 1995). Most often, woody species popu- target and nontarget plant species is crucial to the lations are diminished and effects on herbaceous spe- effective use of control methods, and especially so with cies are less noticeable (Glitzenstein, Platt, and regard to methods such as fire management (Tu, Streng 1995; Menges and Kohfeltd 1995). The re- Hurd, and Randall 2001). Important opportunities sponses of individual plant species to fire have been exist when management tools can be applied to hab- studied, but very little is known about the vast ma- itats in which nonnative invasive species flower or set jority of native plant species, and even less is known seed at times different from those at which native about invasive exotic species. Fire tolerance can be species do (Tu, Hurd, and Randall 2001). predicted sometimes in species with thick bark or Natural Areas Management 141 seeds (either left in the soil or held in the canopy) that or fire-tolerant) stages of forest succession (Dauben- are disbursed over a wide area or adapted to fire, that mire 1967). Very little is known about the use of fire is, are tolerant of high temperatures or require fire to enhance native species while checking invasive for seed release or germination (Daubenmire 1967). exotic plant species. As a final caution regarding the The role that fire can play in suppression or elimi- use of fire to manage invasive plant species, frequent nation of invasive exotic plant species depends on burning has been shown to diminish plant diversity many factors. The resource manager must consider, under certain conditions, and increased fire frequen- in addition to the principal factors already described, cy may provide opportunities for invasive plants to enter new areas (Griffis et al. 2001).

Water-Level Manipulation

A degree of success has been achieved in the regulation of water level to decrease populations of invasive plant species in aquatic and wetland habitats. The draining of aquatic sites decreases standing biomass, but little else usually is achieved unless the site is rendered less susceptible to repeated invasion when rewatered. In certain instances, planting of native species may decrease the susceptibility of aquatic and wetland sites to invasive plant species. Carefully timed water-level increases after mechanical removal or fire management of invasive species can control subsequent germination and, with certain species, resprouting (Paveglio and Kilbride 2000; Sher, Marshall, and Gilbert 2000). Specific methods applicable to natural areas have not yet been described, however.

Reestablishment of Native Plant Species

The planting of native species can be an effective albeit expensive means of decreasing the likelihood of exotic species reinvasion after removal of nonnative species (Masters et al. 1996). Commercial plant nurseries currently provide seeds and plants of several wetland and upland species. Because species can cover a wide range of habitats and latitudes, care should be taken to obtain plant material suitable to the specific habitat under consideration. Seed collect- Figure 6.3. Attack of tree stands by invasive vines and other climbing plants has increased the danger of canopy ed from plants growing in northerly latitudes may do fire and thus death to mature trees. Photo courtesy very poorly in Florida, for example. Introduction of of A. Ferriter, South Florida Water Management Dis- seeds, plant parts, or whole plants should include trict. thorough screening for unwanted plant or animal pests. potential fire effects on soil loss and water quality, Several years often are required for plantings to historical and economic effects on buildings, harm to become established fully, and extra care in terms of human life, and escape of fire to nontarget areas. water, nutrients, and protection from fire and pests Fire has been used very successfully to manage may be necessary for a time. Throughout the estab- plant species in grasslands; to maintain open savan- lishment phase, past management practices may have na (i.e., scattered trees in herbaceous species-domi- to be altered to avoid injury to plantings. If, for ex- nated habitats); and to promote seral (i.e., fire-induced ample, periodic burning or flooding is part of current 142 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies management practice, it may be necessary to decrease (Langeland and Stocker 1997). Such applications also intensity or duration until plantings are able to ex- are used when (1) the nontarget damage resulting hibit their inherent resistance to injury. The require- from herbicides is more acceptable than the damage ments for successful establishment of many native that would have occurred from the invasive species species are unknown, as are their tolerances to cul- and (2) more selective application techniques are in- tural invasive plant management techniques. Even feasible. Spot foliar application is used for small her- when tolerances are known, responses may be affect- baceous species and sometimes for shrubs. Herbicides ed by historical site effects; genetic strain traits; site- that are not soil active (absorbed by plant roots) are specific nutrition and light conditions; and soil type, used if roots of sensitive species are thought to reach hydroperiod, and microclimate interactions. into the treatment area. Woody plants can be cut down and the stumps treated with herbicide, or the bark of standing trees can be treated with an oil-sol- Herbicides uble herbicide diluted in a penetrating oil; this latter Herbicides are essential tools in the integrated technique is referred to as “basal bark application” management of invasive plant species in natural ar- (Figure 6.4). Herbicides also may be placed, by means

Table 6.2. Toxicity of herbicides commonly used in natural areas of Florida (Ahrens 1994)

Bobwhite quail Laboratory rat 8-day dietary LD50 96-hr oral LD50 Herbicide mg/kg mg/kg

2,4-D amine > 5,620 > 1,000 Clopyralid > 4,640 4,300 Glyphosate > 4,640 > 5,000 Hexazinone > 10,000 1,690 Imazapic > 2,150 > 5,000 Imazapyr > 5,000 > 5,000 Metsulfuron > 5,620 > 5,000 Picloram > 5,000 > 5,000 Triclopyr amine > 10,000 2,574 Triclopyr ester 9,026 1,581 Figure 6.4. Tedious application of herbicide to the bark of indi- eas. Because of the need to minimize damage to non- vidual trees (basal bark application) is often needed to control invasive tree species with minimal effects target species, herbicide types and application rates on nontarget vegetation. Photo courtesy of K. must be considered carefully in regard to the sensi- Langeland, University of Florida. tivity of nontarget plant species, and application must be done with care. In extreme instances, nontarget of injection equipment, directly into or in proximity damage must be weighed against both the environ- to the active vascular tissue after removal of portions mental cost of nontreatment and the resulting dam- of the bark. This process is known as the “hack and age that the invasive species will do to the native squirt,” or “frill,” application. community. Using herbicides to control invasive plant species in natural areas results in low toxicities to wildlife Biological Control (Table 6.2). Herbicides differ in terms of absorption, Biological control has often been referred to as the persistence, and selectivity characteristics and, de- only feasible approach to controlling environmental- pending on the composition of nontarget plant species, ly important weeds (Waterhouse 1999), but tradition- are used differently and applied by means of differ- al biological control agents have been released for only ent techniques (Langeland and Stocker 1997). a small proportion of those nonindigenous species Broadcast applications with diluted, liquid foliar- invasive in natural areas (Table 6.3; Figure 6.5). Most absorbed herbicide or dry formulations are used only efforts have been directed at species that are also when monocultures of invasive species exist or when agricultural problems, typically in rangeland and nontarget vegetation is tolerant of the herbicide pasture (Table 6.3). Although successes have been Natural Areas Management 143

Table 6.3. Status of biological control agents for invasive nonindigenous plant species in natural areas (not including aquatic weeds)

Target Status

Carduus nutans Two insects, Rhinocullus conicus and Trichosirocalus horridus, released during the 1970s have provided very Musk thistle successful control. Concern over nontarget effects from expanded feeding of R. conicus on native thistles has been expressed. Centaurea diffusa Twelve insects released. Diffuse knapweed Centaurea solstitialis Six insect species released, five of which are established to some degree in the United States. Yellow starthistle Chondrilla juncea Three insects released and established. Rush skeletonweed Euphorbia esula Ten Eurasian species released, five of which have demonstrated control in the field. Leafy spurge Hypericum perforatum Two leaf-feeding beetles established and considered a proven successful biological control program for more Klamathweed than 40 yr. Lithrum salicaria Four European species released. Purple loosestrife Melaleuca quinquenervia Melaleuca snout beetle released and established, shows promising results. Three additional insects under Melaleuca consideration. Rosa multiflora An unidentified virus or MLO under consideration and an accidentally introduced seed-feeding wasp spreading. Multiflora rose Schinus terebinthifolius Four insects under consideration, one with tentative approval for release. Brazilian pepper Senecio jacobaea Three insects released and established. Ragwort Solanum viarum Two insects from Brazil under consideration for release. Tropical soda apple Tamarix spp. Fifteen insect species under study, two having preliminary approval for release. Saltcedar Verbascum thapsus One insect species released and another under consideration. Common mullein

reported (Deloach 1991), expectations for the success of traditional biological controls should be tempered. Only approximately 60% of released biocontrol agents have become established (Crawley 1989), only 41% have shown evidence of providing some control, and only 33% have exerted detectable control (Williamson and Fitter 1996). Although only eight examples exist, worldwide, of damage caused to nontarget plants by biological control agents (Waterhouse 1999), and although none of these examples involves serious economic or environmental damage and the majority of such damage was anticipated as a result of routine testing before release (Waterhouse 1999), scientists have expressed concerns over observed and potential Figure 6.5. The melaleuca snout beetle (Oxyops vitiosa) is damage to native species by insects released to con- hoped to slow the spread of this invasive tree spe- trol invasive species (Louda et al. 1997; Miller and cies by limiting flower and seed production (Source: Aplet 1993). Discovery of effective and selective bio- G. Buckingham, USDAÐARS.) logical control agents will be important in the long- 144 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies term suppression of widespread invasive plant Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecol Manage 146:239– species. 245. Hedman, C. W., S. L. Grace, and S. E. King. 2000. Vegetation composition and structure of southern coastal plain pine forests: An ecological comparison. Forest Ecol Manage 134:233–247. Appendix A. Abbreviations and Kozlowski, T. T. and C. E. Ahlgren (eds.). 1974. Fire and Ecosys- tems. Academic Press, New York. 542 pp. Acronyms Langeland, K. A. and R. K. Stocker. 1997. Control of nonnative EO Executive Order plants in natural areas of Florida. SP 242. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. EPPC Exotic Pest Plant Council 38 pp. FLEPPC Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council Louda, S. M., D. Kendall, J. Conner, and D. Simberloff. 1997. Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological con- FNGA Florida Nurserymen and Growers Asso- trol of weeds. Science 277:1088–1090. ciation Masters, R. A., S. J. Nissen, R. E. Gaussoin, D. D. Beran, and R. NPS National Park Service N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grassland. Weed Technol 10:392–403. Menges, E. S. and N. Kohfeldt. 1995. Life history strategies of Florida scrub plants in relation to fire. Bull Torrey Bot Club 122:282–297. Appendix B. Glossary Miller, M. and G. Aplet. 1993. Biological control: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Rutgers Law Rev 45:285–334. Natural areas. Areas set aside in national and state Paveglio, F. L. and K. M. Kilbride. 2000. Response of vegetation parks or elsewhere for management of natural to control of reed canarygrass in seasonally managed wetlands resources, including native and biodiverse com- of southwestern Washington. Wildlife Soc Bull 28:730–740. munities. Pemberton, R. W. and A. P. Ferriter. 1998. Old World climbing Savanna. Herbaceous species-dominated habitats, fern (Lygodium microphyllum): A dangerous invasive weed in Florida. Am Fern J 88:165–175. with scattered trees. Reichard, S. and F. Campbell. 1996. Invited but unwanted: A new Seral. Fire induced or fire tolerant. decision-making process could help curb devastating effects of Soil active. Absorbed by plant roots. invasive plants on natural environments in the U.S. Am Nurs- eryman 184:39–45. Reid, M. A. and J. J. Brooks. 2000. Detecting effects of environ- Literature Cited mental water allocations in wetlands of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Regul Rivers Res & Manage 16:479–496. Abrahamson, W. G. and C. R. Abrahamson. 1996. Effects of fire on Sher, A. A., D. L. Marshall, and S. A. Gilbert. 2000. Competition long-unburned Florida uplands. J Veg Sci 7:565–574. between native Populus deltoids and invasive Tamarix ramo- Aylsworth, J. D. 1999. Invasive is out. Ornamental Outlook sissima and the implications for reestablishing flooding distur- 8:40,42. bance. Conserv Biol 14:1744–1754. Crawley, M. J. 1989. The successes and failures of weed biocon- Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Will- trol using insects. Biocontr News Inf 19:213–223. iams, J. A. Lichatowich, and C. C. Coutant. 1996. A general Daubenmire, R. F. 1967. Plants and Environment. A Textbook of protocol for restoration of the regulated rivers. Regul Rivers Plant Autecology. John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, Hoboken, Res & Manage 12:391–413. New Jersey. 422 pp. Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J. M. Randall. 2001. Weed control methods Dehaan, H., L. Vanliere, S. P. Klapwijk, and E. Vandonk. 1993. handbook, April, The structure and function of fen lakes in relation to water-ta- (24 July 2002) ble management in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 265:155– U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Library 177. (USDA–NAL). 2002. National Management Plan: Meeting the Deloach, C. J. 1991. Past successes and current prospects in bio- Invasive Species Challenge, June 5, (24 July 2002) Areas J 11:129–142. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1993. Harmful non- Duncan, B. W., S. Boyle, D. R. Breininger, and P. A. Schmalzer. indigenous species in the United States. OTA–F–565. Office 1999. Coupling past management practice and historic land- of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office, scape changes on John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Washington, D.C. 390 pp. Landscape Ecol 14:291–309. Waterhouse, D. F. 1999. Foreword. In M. H. Julien and M. W. Glitzenstein, J. S., W. J. Platt, and D. R. Streng. 1995. Effects of Griffiths (eds.). Biological Control of Weeds: A World Catalogue fire regime and habitat on tree dynamics in north Florida of Agents and Their Target Weeds. 4th ed. CABI Publishing, longleaf pine savannas. Ecol Monogr 65:441–476. New York. 223 pp. Griffis, K. L., J. A. Crawford, M. R. Wagner, and W. H. Mior. 2001. Williamson, M. and A. Fitter. 1996. The varying success of invad- Understory response to management treatments in northern ers. Ecology 77:1661–1666. Integrated Management of Aquatic Vegetation 145

7 Integrated Management of Aquatic Vegetation

Management of aquatic vegetation is essential to and rapid growth rates of invasive aquatic plant spe- navigation, irrigation, flood control, and natural and cies under most growth conditions found in U.S. wa- recreational resources protection (Figure 7.1). Both ters and (2) the difficulties associated with bringing native and nonnative plant species may be targets for uncontrolled populations back to manageable levels management. Most research related to integrated (Hoyer and Canfield 1997; Schardt 1997). Manage- management of aquatic plants, however, has been ment at the lowest possible level is often referred to directed toward those nonnative invasive species that as maintenance control. most severely impact water use (see Murphy and Pi- The common practice in integrated control of aquat- eterse [1990] for a review of research related to the ic weeds is oriented toward combining management integrated management of invasive aquatic species). procedures to achieve cost effectiveness (Murphy and Pieterse 1990). The goal of a management plan is to protect the water body from the detrimental effects of invasive aquatic plant species and to minimize the ecologic effects of management practices (Langeland 1991). In addition to cost, the biologic importance of aquatic plants to aquatic habitats and the complexity of aquatic ecosystems must be considered in the development of an integrated aquatic plant management plan. Public perceptions and public uses of water bodies also must be taken into account. Con- sideration of all these factors and their interactions can be a complex task.

Figure 7.1. Management of aquatic vegetation is essential to Principles of a Successful navigation, irrigation, flood control, and natural and recreational resources. Photo courtesy of K. Integrated Aquatic Plant Langeland, University of Florida. Management Program Aquatic plants have three basic growth forms: (1) Hoyer and Canfield (1997) suggested six principles submersed plants are attached to the bottom of a wa- of a successful integrated aquatic plant management ter body and grow into the water column; (2) emersed program for lakes. These principles, of various de- plants are attached to the bottom and extend above grees of importance, can be applied to management the water surface; and (3) floating plants are unat- of aquatic vegetation in ponds, lakes, rivers, and tached to the bottom and float on the water surface. ditches. All three growth forms are represented as weeds. Management strategies for key target species will be 1. Identify the uses of the water body and de- discussed individually later in this chapter. termine whether any of these uses is im- The integrated pest management (IPM) of aquatic paired or benefited by aquatic vegetation. weeds must be viewed in a context different from that Water uses and characteristics potentially affect- of pathogens and arthropod pests of crops. Aquatic ed by nuisance aquatic vegetation include specif- vegetation, especially the most problematic species, ic wildlife habitats, fishing, swimming, navigat- should be managed at the lowest possible level. This ing (recreational or commercial), conveying flood guideline is based on (1) the reproductive potentials or irrigation water, and enjoying the outdoors.

145 146 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Intended water use(s) influence(s) the necessary the methods chosen for an integrated aquatic management level (e.g., whole-lake control or spe- plant management plan will depend largely on cific-area control) and the management strategies water uses and management goals. Monetary or tactics. For example, if the only purpose of a considerations also are a factor. Methods such as reservoir is to hold irrigation water or to cool a hand pulling and using bottom barriers are adapt- power plant, grass carp can be used for cost-effec- able only to small ponds or beach sites, whereas tive, whole-lake vegetation control. If vegetation herbicides or grass carp are required for large- interferes with swimming only in certain areas of scale or whole-lake control. The following are a lake and vegetation is to be maintained for wild- management techniques to consider in the devel- life habitat in other parts, small areas of vegeta- opment of an integrated aquatic plant manage- tion may be controlled with bottom covers, har- ment plan. vesters, or contact herbicides. Hand Removal. Removal by hand of small 2. Understand plant ecology and water-body amounts of vegetation interfering with beach ecology. Knowledge of the ecology of a water areas or boat docks may be the only vegetation body is important in the making of IPM decisions control necessary. Hand removal is labor inten- regarding lake systems but is less important for sive and must be conducted routinely. Frequen- making decisions related to managing vegetation cy and practicality of continued hand removal in drainage or irrigation conveyance systems. Un- will depend on availability of labor, regrowth or derstanding plant and water-body ecology is im- reintroduction potential of vegetation, and de- portant when vegetation is to be managed for fish- sired control level (Wade 1990). Floating booms ing and wildlife habitat. Fish populations and can be used to minimize reintroduction of un- wildlife assemblages respond to changes in wanted vegetation. To minimize regrowth, amount and type of vegetation in a water body. hand removal of aquatic vegetation may be used Depending on the trophic status of the water body, in combination with other methods such as her- water chemistry also can be affected by vegeta- bicides or benthic barriers and has the added tion management (e.g., where sufficient nutrients advantage of being very selective in removing are available, managing large amounts of aquat- undesired vegetation and maintaining desired ic macrophytes can lead to dense phytoplankton plants. blooms). Mechanical Removal. Specialized machines 3. Set management goals. Management goals can in a wide variety of sizes and with various ac- be thought of as water-body conditions to be cessories are available for removing aquatic achieved (Hoyer and Canfield 1997). These goals vegetation in different situations (Figure 7.2). depend on water use and influence choice of meth- There are small machines that can be used for od. For an irrigation canal in a citrus grove, management goals likely will be as simple as elimination of all vegetation for an extended period. In contrast, management goals in large, multiple- use, public water-bodies can be quite complex. For example, boaters and swimmers may desire a minimal level of vegetation, whereas anglers for largemouth bass may desire abundant vegetation. In the latter instance, use of selective herbicides, spot treatment with contact herbicides, or mechanical harvesting of noxious vegetation, integrated with planting of tolerant, more-beneficial vegetation, may be necessary. Management or, if possible, eradication of invasive nonnative aquatic species always should be a priority. These plant species will be discussed in detail. Figure 7.2. Although expensive to operate, aquatic weed har- 4. Consider a range of management tech- vesters provide an important method of aquatic weed management. Photo courtesy of W. T. Haller, niques. Management methods range from hand University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricul- removal to herbicide use. As has been discussed, tural Sciences. Integrated Management of Aquatic Vegetation 147

limited areas, as well as large machines that recreational or agricultural use) or a predictable can be used, in combination with transports and source of water for refilling. Additional consid- shore conveyors, in extensive or whole-lake operations include electrical power generation and erations. Such machines commonly are called minimal stream flows for protecting endan- mechanical harvesters or weed harvesters, and gered species. the process they facilitate is called mechanical Drawdown usually is conducted during win- harvesting or removal. ter months so that plants are exposed to both Because it possesses several advantages, me- drying and freezing. Summer drawdown also chanical removal is in certain circumstances an can be effective although it usually affects ag- important method of aquatic plant manage- ricultural and recreational water use more neg- ment (Wade 1990). Immediate control can be atively, stresses fish populations more signifi- achieved, and because plant matter is removed cantly, and has a greater potential to enhance from the water, the problem of decaying vege- the spread of emergent plants such as cattails, tation—which can be associated with herbicide- rushes, and willows. This strategy generally al- killed vegetation—is minimized. Water can be ters the composition of aquatic vegetation while used immediately, whereas there may be re- not necessarily producing desirable changes. strictions on irrigation and domestic water use Responses of various aquatic plant species dif- after the application of certain herbicides. fer widely and at times unpredictably. Sub- Mechanical removal has several disadvan- mersed aquatic plants tend to respond in vari- tages. It usually costs more and is slower and ous ways to drawdown, whereas emergent less efficient than other methods, and associat- plants tolerate or are stimulated by it (Lange- ed maintenance and repair costs are higher. land 1991). Certain bodies of water are unsuitable for me- The main advantage of drawdown as a meth- chanical removal because of the depth of water od of aquatic plant management is its low cost— and the presence of obstructions. Plant frag- unless recreational income or power generation ments may drift to infest new areas. Tempo- is lost. Secondary benefits include sediment rary increases in turbidity may result from dis- oxidation and consolidation and fisheries en- turbance of sediments during aquatic plant hancement (Hoyer and Canfield 1997). Poten- harvest. A suitable area for disposal of harvest- tial undesirable effects include decreases in the ed plants must be available. Wildlife (e.g., small number of desirable species, increases in the fish, snakes, turtles, and desirable vegetation) number of undesirable tolerant species such as are removed with harvested weeds. This pro- the invasive, nonnnative hydrilla (Hydrilla ver- cess must be repeated during the growth ticillata); expansion of undesirable species to season. deeper areas; creation of floating islands (Hoy- Water-Level Manipulation. Water-level manipulation refers to (1) the raising of water levels to control aquatic vegetation by drowning and (2) the lowering of water levels to control aquatic vegetation by exposing it to freezing, drying, or heating. Manipulation of water level in aquatic plant management is limited to lakes and reservoirs with adequate water control structures. In aquatic plant management, lowering of water level, or drawdown, is used more commonly than raising of water level (Figure 7.3). For many years, drawdown has been used to oxidize and to consolidate flocculent sediments, to alter fish populations, and to control aquatic weeds in lakes. Use of drawdown in aquatic Figure 7.3. Drawdown, the lowering of water level, sometimes plant management also may need to be restrict- is used to control aquatic vegetation by exposing it ed because of considerations such as water use to freezing, drying, or heating. Photo courtesy of K. patterns and water rights (e.g., disruption of Langeland, University of Florida. 148 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

er and Canfield 1997); and loss of storage wa- abating the nutrient source(s). If the lake has ter and recreational benefits when insufficient received external phosphorus inputs for a long water is available for refill (Hoyer and Canfield period, it also may be necessary to affect inter- 1997). nal nutrient availability by precipitation with Light Penetration. Submersed aquatic plants agents such as alum. Although nutrient limi- sometimes can be controlled or suppressed by tation is theoretically possible, no examples are decreasing light penetration into the water. available in the scientific literature of the use Light penetration can be restricted by the use of nutrient limitation to manage nuisance root- of special dyes, special fabric bottom covers, or ed macrophyte populations in lakes (Hoyer and fertilization. Canfield 1997). Although dyes are not pesticides, only those Biological Control. Classical biocontrol with approved for such a purpose should be used in fungal pathogens as well as microbial herbicides water. These specially produced dyes block the has been considered for aquatic vegetation man- light that plants need for photosynthesis and agement. Classical biocontrol refers to the in- are nontoxic to aquatic organisms, humans, or troduction of a pathogen from the geographic animals that might drink the treated water. origin of a weed into the area where control is Dyes are effective only in ponds with little to no desired. Experience in the southeastern Unit- flow, however, and generally are effective only ed States indicates that in heavily used and in- in water deeper than 3 feet. tensively managed waterways a microbial her- Although gases produced in bottom sedi- bicide strategy is more suitable than a classical ments accumulate under nonpermeable bottom approach (Charudattan 1990). The potential to covers such as plastic and eventually cause the deploy certain pathogens as traditional agents covers to float to the surface, various materials, in some areas and as microbial herbicides in including black plastic and specially manufac- others and to combine traditional and microbi- tured bottom covers, have been used to prevent al herbicide agents deserves additional study. rooted aquatic plants from growing. Specially According to Charudattan (1990), underwater made bottom covers also can prevent submersed systems impose severe technological and ecolog- aquatic plant growth. In addition to prevent- ical constraints rendering attempts at biologi- ing light from reaching the bottom, these ma- cal control of undesirable submersed plants im- terials also prevent rooted aquatic plants from practical; currently, fungal control is feasible becoming established. These special materials only for emergent species. Fungal pathogens of are expensive and must be maintained to pre- water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), hydril- vent sediment accumulation on top of the cov- la, Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophylum spica- er. Thus, their use is restricted generally to or- tum), parrotsfeather (M. aquaticum), water let- namental ponds, swimming areas, or around tuce (Pistia stratiotes), giant water fern boat docks. (Salvinia molesta), and alligatorweed (Alter- Nutrient Limitation. Plant growth can be nanthera philoxeroides) have been identified limited if even one nutrient critical for growth (Charudattan 1990). No pathogen, however, is in short supply. Because nitrogen, phospho- has been developed into a commercially avail- rus, or carbon usually are the nutrients limit- able microbial herbicide. ing plant growth in lakes (Wetzel 1975), inten- Much effort has been expended in the iden- tional limiting of one or more of these nutrients tification of arthropods as classical biological can be used to decrease the growth of floating control agents for aquatic weeds, and greater plants that derive nutrients from the water col- success has been achieved through the use of umn. Rooted aquatic vegetation derives nutri- such agents than through the use of microbial ents from the lake bottom (Wetzel 1975) and agents. Thirteen insects have been identified thus will not respond to decreased nutrients in as biological control agents for six of the most the water column. invasive aquatic plants in the United States In certain geographic regions, nutrients are (Table 7.1). As yet, none has obviated the use in such short supply that aquatic plants cannot of other control methods. These insects will be grow to problem levels. Where inputs with a discussed later in reference to their respective human source have accelerated plant growth, host plants. nutrients can be limited by identifying and Several plant-feeding, or phytophagous, fish Integrated Management of Aquatic Vegetation 149

Table 7.1. Insect biological control agents on invasive aquatic plant species in the United States (Langeland 1991)

Biocontrol agent Target plant species

Agasicles hygrophyla Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) Amynothrips andersoni Vogtia malloi Neochotina eichhorniae Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) N. bruchi Sameodes albigutalis Baguous affinis Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) B. hydrillae Hydrellia balciunasi Parapoynx diminutalis Euthrychiopsis lecontei (native) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Neohydronomous affinis Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) Cyrtabagous salvineae Giant water fern (Salvinia molesta)

species have been considered biological control al testing for registration and reregistration is agents (Opuszcynski and Shireman 1995). The required to label products for use in water. grass carp, now produced as a sterile triploid, Thus, the monetary incentive for manufactur- has found widespread use in nonselective ers to register aquatic herbicides is low. Only aquatic weed control and in hydrilla manage- six herbicide active ingredients are registered ment programs (Langeland 1996). Its integra- in aquatic plant management (Table 7.2). Of tion as a hydrilla biological control agent will the many known herbicidal active ingredients be discussed in greater detail later in this chap- with potentials against nuisance aquatic plants, ter. Used mainly for algae control, Tillapia spp. only those ingredients that can be shown to be have played a limited role in aquatic vegetation safe to use in the aquatic environment and that control in the United States and will not be dis- have sufficient market potential are registered cussed further in this report. or reregistered. Herbicides registered for aquat- Herbicides. The market for aquatic herbi- ic use are nonpersistent and of low environmen- cides is small compared with markets such as tal toxicity. Even though aquatic herbicides those for agronomic crops. Moreover, addition- must meet the rigorous registration standards

Table 7.2. Herbicide active ingredients used for managing invasive aquatic plant species in the United States (Langeland 1991)

Herbicide active ingredient Target species

2,4ÐD Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Cuprous ion Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Diquat dibromide Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) Endothall Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Fluridone Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Torpedo grass (Panicum repens) Glyphosate Torpedo grass (Panicum repens) 150 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sassa Rivers Aquatic Plant Management Inter- opposition to the use of aquatic herbicides by the agency Committee. Because this public water public is often encountered. The educational system is highly populated and heavily used for component of an integrated aquatic plant man- a great variety of recreational activities and at agement program often requires teaching indi- the same time provides a refuge for the endan- viduals about the pesticide registration process gered West Indies manatee, it is an especially and the environmental safety of aquatic herbi- complex system for which to develop an aquatic cides. Even with the few available registered plant management plan. The Florida multi-agen- aquatic herbicides and the public skepticism cy/public task force set up to develop its work regarding their environmental safety, most in- plan is composed of representatives from agen- tegrated aquatic plant management programs cies and public user groups that may have con- rely on the use of herbicides. This situation re- flicting interests in the management of aquatic sults from their cost effectiveness and environ- plants. Agencies and groups represented include mental safety, both of which are recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the aquatic plant managers and regulators. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida De- 5. Develop an action plan and a program to partment of Environmental Protection, Citrus monitor the success or failure of manage- County, the University of Florida Center for ment activities. Once the crucial information Aquatic and Invasive Plants, the Save the Man- identified earlier in this report is available to atee Club, and the Crystal River Chamber of stakeholders of the integrated aquatic plant Commerce. (Other task forces typically include management plan, decisions can be made to syn- members of fishing and hunting associations.) thesize a plan that is satisfactory to all parties. This specific committee’s efforts have resulted in A comprehensive written plan provides continu- an aquatic plant management plan integrating ity as participants change (Hoyer and Canfield (1) both application of contact and systemic her- 1997). It allows for monitoring of control meth- bicides and mechanical harvesting of the invasive ods and is flexible so that changes can be made submersed plants hydrilla and Eurasian water- when new information becomes available or milfoil, (2) plantings of beneficial native aquatic change becomes necessary for other reasons. And plants to protect the West Indian manatee, and it is long term so that vegetation can be managed (3) provision of optimized recreational benefits. on a continuing basis. Such management plans 6. Establish a long-term aquatic plant man- are important for private lakes so that all water- agement educational program. A long-term front property owners or members of a lake own- aquatic plant management educational plan is ers’ association can agree on management goals, essential so that all stakeholders understand the methods, and outcomes and are even more im- information provided for developing the plan. portant for multiple-use public waters. In the This insight must encompass ecology as well as latter instance, regulatory agencies will oversee the potential and observed ecological responses or assist in plan development and implementa- of various control methods. Education almost al- tion. ways is needed in regard to the environmental Florida’s use of multi-agency/public task forc- and the human-health safety of herbicides and es or committees to develop work plans for aquat- biological controls. Educational commitment ic plant management is a helpful example of how must be long term because of the changes in pop- an integrated aquatic plant management plan ulation and the limits of human memory. Once can be developed for public water bodies (Allen the plant problem is removed, it generally is a 1993). Committees are formed for individual matter of only a few years before users begin to water bodies/systems because each situation is question why the maintenance control of aquat- unique. Task forces consider the multiple use ic plants is being done (Hoyer and Canfield 1997). characteristics of the water body, its hydrology, This is a crucial time for educational efforts ex- location, economics, fisheries, wildlife popula- plaining why weeds should be maintained at a tions, and relevant historical trends and public low level instead of allowed to run rampant concerns. An example is the Crystal and Homo- intermittently. Integrated Management of Aquatic Vegetation 151

Integrated Management of isted in Florida alone (Hammack 1948). Effects of unmanaged water hyacinth range from flooding to Specific Invasive Plants degraded aquatic habitats (Gowanlach 1944; Pen- found and Earle 1948). Aggressive management pro- Alligatorweed grams are necessary to prevent water hyacinth from having significant detrimental effects on water re- First identified in the United States in 1890, alli- sources. Because it has a population doubling time gatorweed is believed to have been brought in ship of as little as 6 to 18 days (Mitchell 1976), water hya- ballast from its native South America to Charleston cinth should be managed at the lowest possible level Harbor (Gangstadt 1977). By the 1960s, this pest (Figure 7.5). Maintenance control results in both di- occupied more than 160,000 acres (a.) of water from minished detrimental effects of water hyacinth Florida to Virginia (Gangstadt 1977). Difficult to con- growth and decreased herbicide use (Joyce 1985). trol with herbicides, alligatorweed was an early tar- The water hyacinth weevils Neochetina eichhorni- get for classical biological control research. Three ae and N. bruchi were introduced as water hyacinth insects—Agasicles hygrophila, the alligatorweed flea biocontrol agents in the United States in 1972 and beetle; Amynothrips andersoni, the alligatorweed 1974, respectively (Langeland 1991). The water thrips; and Vogtia malloi, the alligatorweed stem borer—were approved and released between 1964 and 1971 (Coulson 1977; Gangstadt 1977). In warm regions and in large bodies of water, alligatorweed is a minor problem as long as flea-beetle populations are sufficient (Coulson 1977). The farther north along the Atlantic coast that alligatorweed populations occur, however, the more completely management programs must integrate herbicide (usually glyphosate) applications and augment flea-beetle populations. Overwintering of flea- beetle populations depends on latitude and on winter severity. The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers undertakes a yearly collection of alligatorweed flea-beetles from local waters for shipment to representatives of state or federal agencies in locations whose ecologies can benefit from augmentation of insect populations (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2002) (Figure 7.4). In North Carolina and Virginia, which make up the extreme northern boundaries of alligatorweed on the Atlantic coast, insects released for biological control of alligatorweed are ineffective (Langeland 1986). Here, a maintenance program depending exclusively on applications of glyphosate is necessary. In small ponds and ditches throughout that region, the suppression level offered by insects often is unacceptable and herbicide application, usually of glyphosate, is the predominant control method.

Figure 7.4. The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Water Hyacinth Engineers undertakes a yearly collection of alligatorweed flea-beetles (Agasicles hygrophyla) Native to the Amazon Basin, water hyacinth (Eich- for shipment to representatives of state or federal hornia crassipes) was introduced into the United agencies. Photo courtesy of K. Langeland, Univer- States in 1884. By 1948, 63,000 a. of this species ex- sity of Florida. 152 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies hyacinth moth, Sameodes albigutalis, was introduced ter hyacinth at maintenance control levels (Schardt in 1977. Although established and capable of decreas- 1997). 2,4–dichlorophenoxy acetic acid, the most ing the vigor of plants or controling them in growth- widely used herbicide for water hyacinth control, is limited situations, these insects have not decreased also the most cost effective and is selective against measurably the need for operational water hyacinth water hyacinth at use rates below which nontarget control programs where the plant has been a problem native plant populations such as spatterdock (Nuphar historically (Haller 1996). luteum) are not damaged (Hanlon and Haller 1991). The fungal pathogen Cercospera rodmanii has re- Diquat dibromide is used when water hyacinth is ceived attention because of its potential integration growing in bulrush (Scirpus validus, S. californicus) into water-hyacinth control programs (Charudattan communities, for the nontarget bulrush plants con- 1986). Because of both technical difficulties in ensur- tacted by overspray quickly recover, unlike those af- ing efficacy and uncertainties in the marketplace, C. fected by systemic 2,4–D (Thayer and Joyce 1990). rodmanii has, however, never been registered as a Copper-containing herbicides are used in proximity bioherbicide (Charudattan 1990). to domestic water supply intakes because they do not Spray programs incorporating 2,4–dichlorophe- have the label-required setback distances from in- noxy acetic acid (2,4–D), diquat dibromide, or com- takes that diquat and 2,4–D do. Diquat dibromide plexed copper as herbicides are used to maintain wa- and 2,4–D do not harm water hyacinth weevils directly, and it has been recommended that areas of water hyacinth be left unsprayed to provide refugia for the weevils (Haag 1986a,b). In practice, this concept is not used because spray programs, being imperfect, themselves leave areas of refugia; intentionally leaving large areas for refugia would be contrary to the principles of maintenance control and detrimental to the effectiveness of spray programs. Thus, although established biological control agents may slow the growth rate of water hyacinths, extensive scouting to identify small populations and spraying these small populations with appropriate herbicides to maintain them at the lowest possible level are keys to successful management (Schardt 1997). A typical integrated water hyacinth control program integrates growth suppression by means of traditional biological controls, depending on the situation. Tactics include extensive scouting to identify small water-hyacinth populations and spraying small numbers of plants frequently with the appropriate herbicide to minimize nontarget effects while maintaining plants at the lowest possible level.

Hydrilla Native to the warmer regions of Asia, hydrilla was discovered in U.S. waters in 1960 and now is a common problem in the Atlantic coastal states, southeastern states, Gulf Coastal states, California, and Wash- ington (Langeland 1996). Hydrilla is a problem in many aquatic environments, e.g., agricultural water conveyance canals and natural lakes, where it inter- Figure 7.5. When not managed at maintenance levels, water feres with recreational activities, impedes water flow, hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) will displace native displaces native-plant communities, and alters fish- plant communities in lakes and rivers. Photo courtesy of J. Schardt, Florida Department of Environ- eries populations and water chemistry (Langeland mental Protection. 1996). Integrated Management of Aquatic Vegetation 153

Four insects—Bagous affinis, the hydrilla tuber ready (Eggeman 1994; Jaggers 1994). But these her- weevil; B. hydrillae, the hydrilla stem borer; Hydrel- bicides often are used alone to avoid the potential for lia balciunasi, the Australian leaf mining fly; and H. unpredictable results associated with the stocking of pakistanae, a leaf mining fly—have been approved as grass carp. The amount of herbicide needed for con- biocontrol agents in the United States and released trol of large areas of hydrilla has been decreased (Langeland 1996). Another insect, Parapoynx greatly by application of fluridone in low doses over diminutalis, a small aquatic moth, was released ac- extended periods (Fox, Haller, and Shilling 1994). cidentally. None of these insects has had measurable Because of the great expense, mechanical harvesting or widespread effects on hydrilla populations (Cuda, rarely is used for hydrilla management; it is used, J. 2001. Personal communication). however, when herbicides or grass carp cannot be Hydrilla is high on the food preference list of the used, for example, in open systems with high rates of grass carp, which has been used for biological control water exchange (Langeland 1996). of hydrilla since the early 1970s (Opuszcynski and Shireman 1995). Genetically sterile triploid grass carp now are used instead of diploid fish, which have Eurasian Watermilfoil the potential to escape stocking sites to suitable Eurasian watermilfoil, native to Europe, Asia, and spawning habitats (Malone 1984). Initial stocking northern Africa, first was documented in the United rates of more than 50 grass carp/a. proved too high States in 1942 (Couch and Nelson 1985) and now oc- for selective hydrilla control and usually resulted in curs throughout the country (U.S. Geological Survey removal of all vegetation, including nontarget vege- 2001). tation, from the stocked water body because once pre- A native weevil (Euthrychiopsis lecontei) has been ferred foods were consumed, the fish moved on to less- implicated in the natural declines of Eurasian water- preferred foods (Van Dyke, Leslie, and Nall 1984). milfoil, but its effects are insufficiently predictable to Optimal grass carp stocking rate depends on many make application practical. Integration of mechani- interacting factors unique to individual water bodies. cally harvested areas of great human activity with Computer-based stocking rate simulation models partitioned, less-used areas into no-harvest zones has have been developed to help aquatic-plant managers been suggested as a feasible approach to Eurasian (Stewart and Boyd 1994). Because poststocking mor- watermilfoil control (Sheldon and O’Bryan 1996). But tality cannot be predicted and results depend on ac- this practice has been neither adopted widely nor tual numbers of fish present (not on initial stocking proved. Grass carp and herbicides are used for Eur- rate), these models do not reliably determine with asian watermilfoil control with integration character- precise prediction of outcome the stocking rates for istics and limitations similar to those of hydrilla. individual water bodies. Low stocking rates of fewer Mechanical harvesting is used more often as a stand- than 10 fish/a. are used and integrated now with initial and perhaps subsequent herbicide applications (Eggeman 1994; Jaggers 1994) (Figure 7.6). In a recent survey of grass carp-stocked lakes, Hanlon (1999) concluded that stocking lakes with more than 3 to 4 fish/a. resulted in complete control of vegetation, with the exception of a few species that grass carp have difficulty consuming. Stockings of 3 to 4 fish/a. could result in control of nuisance levels of submersed vegetation, such as hydrilla, while some predominantly unpalatable submersed, floating leafed, and emergent vegetation could be maintained. At stocking rates below 3 to 4 fish/a., little control may be achieved. Fish populations of 3 to 4 fish/a. are difficult to achieve, however, because of the unknown mortality rates of grass carp. Figure 7.6. Genetically sterile triploid grass carp are used alone The contact herbicides endothall and diquat (some- or in combination with herbicide application to con- times tankmixed with a copper-based herbicide) and trol hydrilla (Hydrilla verticuillata) and other submersed aquatic vegetation. Photo courtesy of R. K. the systemic herbicide fluridone can be integrated Stocker, University of Florida, Institute of Food and with the low grass carp stocking rates described al- Agricultural Sciences. 154 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies alone management for Eurasian watermilfoil in Giant Water Fern northern states, which have a shorter growing season, than for hydrilla in southern states. A recent introduction to the United States from Southeastern Brazil, giant water fern first was found in the United States in South Carolina in 1995 and Torpedo Grass now has invaded Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisi- Torpedo grass was introduced from the Old World ana, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, California, and into the United States before 1876 (Beal 1896) and Hawaii (U.S. Geological Survey 2001). Its expected now occurs from Florida to Texas, northward along range in the United States is in fresh waters, from the Atlantic coast to North Carolina, and in Califor- areas experiencing frost but not ice, to warmer regions nia and Hawaii (Langeland and Burks 1998). Torpe- (Whiteman and Room 1991). Effects are similar to do grass quickly forms monocultures displacing na- those described for water hyacinth and water lettuce. tive vegetation in water bodies and is a significant Giant water fern has been an important weed in pest in citrus grove irrigation canals and on golf much of both the tropical and the subtropical regions courses. of the world. After evaluations of numerous insects No biological controls have been developed for tor- for its biological control, all of which were unsuccess- pedo grass, and no methods other than herbicides are ful, Cyrtobagous salviniae was found to be very suc- effective for controlling it (Langeland and Smith cessful in controlling giant water fern (Room 1986). 1998). The only herbicide registered for aquatic use This weevil should be able to control giant salvinia and effective against torpedo grass is glyphosate, in most locations (Room 1986). Cyrtobagous salvini- which achieves at best incomplete control with sin- ae exists on populations of the common water fern gle or repeat applications. Because of the extensive (Salvinia minima) in Florida (Carter, T. 2001. Per- number of dormant buds on rhizomes, repeat appli- sonal communication). The effectiveness of C. salvin- cations are necessary to bring an established torpedo iae in controlling giant water fern in the United States grass population under control. Smith, Langeland, is unknown. and Hanlon (1998) provided a treatment regime that A national Giant Salvinia Task Force (GSTF) was decreases herbicide use and cost by decreasing gly- formed to develop an integrated management pro- phosate rate in successive applications. gram for giant water fern (Helton and Chilton 2001). The GSTF, a cooperative effort among the U.S. De- partment of Agriculture (USDA), FWS, and state and Water Lettuce local governments, proposed that affected agencies Water lettuce was seen in the United States as respond using public education, aquatic herbicides, early as 1774 and may have been introduced by nat- biological control, and mechanical removal where fea- ural means or by humans (Langeland and Burks sible (Helton and Chilton 2001). Even before forma- 1998). It is a tropical plant native to Africa or to South tion of the task force, the U.S. Geological Survey had America, and in the United States is limited to warm produced a public information fact sheet and Web regions. It occurs throughout peninsular Florida and page (U.S. Geological Survey 2001). More than 80,000 Westward to Texas and also is found persisting in copies of the fact sheet have been distributed. The coastal South Carolina. It forms vast mats, disrupt- herbicides diquat, chelated copper, glyphosate, and ing submersed plant communities and interfering fluridone are being used in emergency efforts to con- with water movement and navigation. tain populations, and a team of USDA scientists is The water lettuce weevil (Neohydronomous affinis) conducting, under quarantine, studies of the Austra- was released in Florida in 1986 and 1987 (Gallagher lian strain of Cyrtobagous salviniae, studies that must and Haller 1990). Having formed self-perpetuating be undertaken before release is feasible (Helton and populations and being dispersed throughout the pen- Chilton 2001). insular portion of the state, the weevils now are affecting water lettuce populations. Weevil populations and their effects are unpredictable, however. Water Appendix A. Abbreviations and lettuce is very sensitive to low doses of diquat herbicide, and management is integrated heavily toward Acronyms herbicide application. In monocultures, diquat is used 2,4–D amine 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid alone. In mixed populations of water lettuce and a. acre water hyacinth, a mixture of diquat and 2,4–D is used. FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Integrated Management of Aquatic Vegetation 155

GSTF Giant Salvinia Task Force 7–9, 1994, University of Florida, Gainesville. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mis- ha hectare sissippi. 242 pp. USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture Fox, A. M., W. T. Haller, and D. G. Shilling. 1994. Use of fluridone for hydrilla management in the Withlacoochee River, Flor- ida. J Aquat Plant Manage 32:47–55. Gallagher, J. E. and W. T. Haller. 1990. History of development Appendix B. Glossary of aquatic weed control in the United States. Rev Weed Sci Classical biological control. The introduction of 5:115–191. Gangstadt, E. O. 1977. Potential growth of aquatic plants in Re- an organism from the geographic origin of a weed public of the Philippines and projected methods of control. J into the area where control is desired. Aquat Plant Manage 14:10–14. Drawdown. Intentional lowering of water level. Gowanlach, J. N. 1944. The economic status of the waterhyacinth Emersed plants. Plants attached to the bottom of in Louisiana. Louisiana Conservationist 1:6,8. a water body and extending above the water sur- Haag, K. A. 1986a. Effective control of waterhyacinth using Neochetina and limited herbicide application. J Aquat Plant face. Manage 24:70–75. Floating plants. Plants unattached to the bottom Haag, K. A. 1986b. Effects of herbicide application on mortality of a water body and floating on the water surface. and dispersive behavior of the waterhyacinth weevils, Maintenance control. The lowest possible level of Neochetina eichhorniae and Neochetina bruchi management. (Coleoptera:Curculionida). Environ Entomol 15:1192–1198. Haller, W. T. 1996. Operational aspects of chemical, mechanical, Mechanical removal. Removal of unwanted vege- and biological control of waterhyacinth in the United States. P. tation by means of specialized machines. 137. In R. Charudattan, R. Labrada, T. D. Center, and C. Kelly- Phytophagus. Feeding on plants. Begazo (eds.). Strategies for Waterhyacinth Control: Report of Submersed plants. Plants attached to the bottom a Panel of Experts Meeting, 11–14 September 1995, Fort Lau- of a water body and growing into the water col- derdale, Florida. Food and Agricultural Organization, United Nations, Rome. 217 pp. umn. Hammack, J. A. 1948. Distribution of waterhyacinth in Florida. Water-Level manipulation. (1) The raising of wa- Pp. 21–28. In Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of Flori- ter levels to control aquatic vegetation by drown- da. E. O. Painter Printing Company, De Land, Florida. ing and (2) the lowering of water levels to control Hanlon, C. and B. Haller. 1991. The effect of 2,4–D amine on the aquatic vegetation by exposing it to freezing, dry- growth of Spatterdock. Aquatics13:18–20. Hanlon, S. G. 1999. Evaluation of macrophyte control in 41 Flor- ing, or heating. ida lakes using triploid grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) at different stocking rates. Master’s Thesis, University of Flor- ida, Gainesville. 112 pp. Helton, R. J. and E. Chilton. 2001. Giant salvinia (Salvinia mo- Literature Cited lesta D. S. Mitchell) in Texas: A destructive menace. Aquatics 23:12–18. Allen, N. P. 1993. The role of the task force in today’s aquatic plant Hoyer, M. V. and D. E. Canfield. 1997. Aquatic plant manage- management. Aquatics 15:11–18. ment in lakes and reservoirs. North American Lake Manage- Beal, W. J. 1896. Grasses of North America. Volume 2. Holt and ment Society, and Aquatic Plant Management Society, U.S. Company, New York. 675 pp. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 101 pp. Charudattan, R. 1986. Integrated control of waterhyacinth (Eich- Jaggers, B. V. 1994. Economic considerations of integrated hyd- hornia crassipes) with a pathogen, insects and herbicides. Weed rilla management. A case history of Johns Lake, Florida. Pp. Sci 34:26–30. 151–163. In Proceedings of the Grass Carp Symposium, March Charudattan, R. 1990. Biological control of aquatic weeds by 7–9, 1994, University of Florida, Gainesville. Waterways Ex- means of fungi. Pp. 141–142. In A. H. Pieterse and K. J. Mur- periment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, phy (eds.). Aquatic Weeds: The Ecology and Management of Mississippi. 242 pp. Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation. Oxford University Press, New York. 593 pp. Joyce, J. C. 1985. Benefits of maintenance control of waterhya- Couch, R. and E. Nelson. 1985. Myriophyllum in North America. cinth. Aquatics 7:11–13. Pp. 8–18. In L.W. J. Anderson (ed.). Proceedings of the 1st In- Langeland, K. A. 1986. Management program for alligatorweed ternational Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spica- in North Carolina. Report Number 224. Water Resources Re- tum) and Related Haloragaceae Species, July 23–24, Vancou- search Institute, University of North Carolina, Raleigh. 34 pp. ver, British Columbia. The Aquatic Plant Management Society, Langeland, K. A. 1991. Aquatic pest control applicator training Incorporated, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 223 pp. manual. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Coulson, J. R. 1977. Biological control of alligatorweed, 1959–1972. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville. 107 pp. A review and evaluation. Technical Bulletin Number 1547. U.S. Langeland, K. A. 1996. Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle (Hydro- Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 98 pp. charitaceae), The perfect aquatic weed. Castanea 61:293–304. Eggeman, D. 1994. Integrated hydrilla management plan utiliz- Langeland, K. A. and K. C. Burks. 1998. Identification and biolo- ing herbicides and triploid grass carp in Lake Istokpoga. Pp. gy of non-native plants in Florida’s natural areas. University 164–165. In Proceedings of the Grass Carp Symposium, March of Florida, Gainesville. 165 pp. 156 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Langeland, K. A. and B. Smith. 1998. Torpedograss: Forage gone Smith, B., K. Langeland, and C. Hanlon. 1998. Comparison of wild. Wildland Weeds 1:4–6. various glyphosate application schedules to control torpe- Malone, J. M. 1984. Triploid white amur. Fisheries 9:36. dograss. Aquatics 20:4–9. Mitchell, D. S. 1976. The growth and management of Eichhornia Stewart, R. M. and W. A. Boyd. 1994. Simulation model evalua- crassipes and Salvinia spp. in their native environment and in tion of sources of variability in grass carp stocking requirements. alien situations. Pp. 165–176. In C. K. Varshney and J. Rzos- Pp. 85–92. In Proceedings of the Grass Carp Symposium, March ka (eds.). Aquatic Weeds SE Asia. W. Junk Publishers, The 7–9, 1994, University of Florida, Gainesville. Waterways Ex- Hague. periment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburgh, Murphy, K. J. and A. H. Pieterse. 1990. Present status and pros- Mississippi. 242 pp. pects of integrated control of aquatic weeds. Pp. 222–227. In Thayer, D. D. and J. C. Joyce. 1990. The impact of herbicides on A. H. Pieterse and K. J. Murphy (eds.). Aquatic Weeds: The bulrush communities: An evaluation of waterhyacinth control Ecology and Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation. efforts within native plants. Aquatics 12:12–19. Oxford University Press, New York. 593 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Biological control of exotic Opuszcynski, K. and J. V. Shireman. 1995. Herbivorous Fishes: aquatic and wetland plants, December 7, (29 July ton, Florida. 223 pp. 2002) Penfound, W. T. and T. T. Earle. 1948. The biology of the water- U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. Nonindigenous aquatic species, hyacinth. Ecol Monogr 18:449–472. September 19, (29 July 2002) Room, P. M. 1986. Biological control in solving the world’s Sal- Van Dyke, J. M., A. J. Leslie, and L. E. Nall. 1984. The effects of vinia molesta problems. Pp. 271–276. In Proceedings of the grass carp on the aquatic macrophytes of four Florida lakes. J European Weed Research Society/Association of Applied Biol- Aquat Plant Manage 22:84–86. ogists 7th Symposium on Aquatic Weeds. Quorn Selective Re- Wade, P. M. 1990. Physical control of aquatic weeds. Pp. 93–135. production Limited, Loughborough, Leicester, United Kingdom. In A. H. Pieterse and K. J. Murphey (eds.). Aquatic Weeds: The Schardt, J. D. 1997. Maintenance control. Pp. 229–243. In D. Sim- Ecology and Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation. berloff, D. C. Schmitz, and T. C. Brown (eds.). Strangers in Par- Oxford University Press, New York. adise. Island Press, Washington D.C. 467 pp. Wetzel, R. G. 1975. Limnology. W. B. Saunders Company, Phila- Sheldon, S. P. and L. M. O’Bryan. 1996. The effects of harvesting delphia, Pennsylvania. 473 pp. Eurasian watermilfoil on the aquatic weevil Euhrychiopsis le- Whiteman, J. B. and P. M. Room. 1991. Temperatures lethal to contei. J Aquat Plant Manage 34:76–77. Salvinia molesta Mitchell. Aquat Bot 42:27–35. Food Animal Integrated Pest Management 157

8 Food Animal Integrated Pest Management

The livestock and poultry industries are character- of the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996 have lim- ized by production and marketing systems ranging ited both the availability of existing pesticides to the from the large, vertically integrated companies that animal industry and the introduction of new pesticide dominate poultry and swine production to the small, chemistries for minor-use commodities. The needs to independent growers who sell directly to consumers. manage pesticide resistance, to confront nuisance is- Each segment of the industry faces a unique set of pest sues, to decrease the risk of arthropod-borne disease management challenges, in terms of both the pests to man and animals, and to continue producing food and the nuances of management approaches that best profitably will define, collectively, the future path of suit the production environment. IPM in the livestock and poultry industries. The basic elements of integrated pest management (IPM) for livestock and poultry are the same as those for other agricultural commodities. Cultural practice, Livestock biological control, monitoring, and chemical control all play important roles in effective IPM programs for Dairy Cow and Confined Cattle Integrated livestock and poultry pests. New regulations govern- Pest Management ing pesticide use have decreased the availability of pesticides over the past decade. Although these ac- The house fly (Musca domestica) (Figure 8.1) and tions have caused some difficulty for the animal in- the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans) (Figure 8.2) are dustry, they have made producers more receptive to the primary insect pests affecting confined cattle in the application of a full range of pest management dairies and feedlots in the United States. Public health options. Amendments to the Federal Insecticide, and nuisance issues are major economic incentives for Fungicide and Rodenticide Act in 1988 and passage managing house flies. Milk must be produced, han-

Figure 8.1. The house fly—a primary pest of confinement live- Figure 8.2. The stable fly—a biting muscoid fly commonly as- stock and poultry production systems. Photo cour- sociated with livestock production. Photo courtesy tesy of M. Stringham, North Carolina State of D. W. Watson, North Carolina State University. University.

157 158 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies dled, and stored in a clean and sanitary environment, son 1998). An indigenous species, M. raptor is found and public health authorities consider numerous flies throughout the Midwest, mid-Atlantic states, and in and around a dairy to be evidence of unsatisfacto- northeastern United States. M. raptorellus (Figure ry sanitation (Rutz, Geden, and Pitts 1993). Public 8.3) has shown promise for IPM programs (Petersen nuisances caused by flies dispersing from dairies and and Cawthra 1995). A gregarious pupal parasitoid, feedlots into suburban areas are a growing concern. female M. raptorellus deposits three to five eggs in Stable flies are biting-insects that may take sev- each fly pupa, increasing its own reproductive poten- eral blood meals a day from humans and other ani- tial. Many species of parasitoids are available com- mals. Because the bite of the stable fly is quite pain- mercially through insectaries (Hunter 2002). ful, cattle will avoid feeding and bunch up to avoid this Well-informed producers benefit most by purchas- pest. The stable fly is capable of transmitting sever- ing parasitoids suitable to their region and needs. al livestock pathogens, notably those causing anthrax, Adult fly populations are monitored based on the spot brucellosis, swine erysipelas, and equine infectious card technique, which helps producers establish an anemia (Knapp, Charron, and Burg 1992). action threshold based on their tolerances for flies; Bovine responses to stable fly feeding range from certain producers may tolerate the presence of some, behaviors denoting pain and irritation such as bunch- whereas other producers may accept no flies. The spot ing, head throwing, and foot stamping, to physiological changes. The latter includes increased body temperature, increased urinary nitrogen output, and elevated cortisol levels (Wieman et al. 1992). Integrated pest management is recognized in the industry as a preferred best management practice to minimize pest problems in dairy cow and feedlot cattle systems and to help protect farm workers, consumers, and the environment (Rutz and Watson 1998). Traditionally, dairy farmers have relied heavily on insecticides, a management strategy that has led to resistance in the fly population (Rutz et al. 1999). Integrated pest management in dairy systems spans several years of research and Extension efforts. To manage fly populations, the dairy IPM plan relies on accurate pest identification and monitoring Figure 8.3. Muscidifurax raptorellus (and other parasitoids)— and on cultural, biological, and chemical control strat- effective biological control agents for fly manage- egies (Rutz and Watson 1998). Among these strate- ment in livestock and poultry production. Photo gies, cultural control (i.e., manure management by courtesy of D. W. Watson, North Carolina State Uni- versity. eliminating the habitat conducive to growth and development of the immature stages of flies) is essen- card technique estimates the adult fly population by tial to the fly management program (Rutz, Geden, and determining the number of fly specks on ten cards dis- Pitts 1993). Prompt removal of manure, soiled bed- tributed throughout a barn. Cards are replaced week- ding, and spoiled feed limits the opportunity for flies ly, and running averages tallied. If tolerance thresh- to breed in the barn. Land application of manure and olds are exceeded, a low-residual pyrethrin space bedding increases mortality of existing larvae through spray is recommended to control adult flies while drying and chilling during the winter. Natural ene- minimizing parasitoid mortality (Rutz, Geden, and mies of flies also play important roles in on-farm fly Pitts 1993). management. For instance, parasitoids attack the Many IPM efforts in feedlot cattle systems have pupal stage of the fly. The female parasitoid depos- concentrated on manure management, biological con- its an egg in the fly puparium, the larval parasitoid trol, migration, and feedlot design (Campbell et al. kills and consumes the fly pupa, and the newly de- 1999). Demonstrating the IPM principle that no sin- veloped parasitoid emerges from the fly pupa in 2 to gle strategy will provide satisfactory control, Thomas 3 weeks (Rutz, Geden, and Pitts 1993). Although ten et al. (1996) proved that frequent cleanings of feed- species of parasitoids are associated commonly with lots decreased stable fly populations by only 51%. But dairy systems, one species, Muscidifurax raptor, has the addition of natural enemies to the management been used extensively in IPM studies (Rutz and Wat- plan enhanced fly management further. The house Food Animal Integrated Pest Management 159 fly parasitoid, Muscidifurax zaraptor, was the most ed with wild female flies, and the result was a pre- abundant species in Nebraska feedlots (Campbell et cipitous decline in offspring. Screwworm fly popula- al. 1999); a second species, Spalangia nigroaenea, was tions currently are limited to isolated regions of Cen- the dominant parasitoid attacking the stable fly tral and South America. Research efforts are (Greene, Guo, and Chen 1998; Jones and Weinzierl concentrated in Panama and include remote sensing 1997). Augmentation of naturally occurring parasi- to establish ecological habitats, population dynamics, toid populations has been practiced through frequent and behavior (Kunz et al. 1999). releases of commercially available selected strains of Important external pests of range cattle in the these antagonists (Campbell et al. 1999; Weinzierl United States include the biting flies (horn flies, mos- and Jones 1998). quitoes, gnats, horse flies, stable flies, and black flies), Dispersion and migration of adult house flies and face flies, cattle grubs, lice, mites, and ticks. These stable flies are strategies of great importance to their pests cost U.S. livestock producers an estimated $3 management (Campbell et al. 1999). Although resi- billion annually (Kunz et al. 1999). dent populations of flies are suspected of overwinter- The horn fly (Haematobia irritans) (Figure 8.4) is ing on the farm, unpublished reports of massive mi- a serious problem: estimated losses due to this pest grations of large numbers of flies have suggested that exceed $800 million annually and result from decreased feed efficiency, weight gain, and milk production (Kunz et al. 1999). After taking frequent blood meals from the host, female horn flies deposit their eggs in dung pats, where the larvae develop (Bruce 1964). At first, horn flies were fairly easy to control with the introduction of pyrethroid-impregnated ear tags, which were a convenient, inexpensive, long-lasting method, but widespread use of the ear tag placed heavy selection pressure on the horn fly population, which in turn caused resistance to the pyrethroids (Kunz et al. 1999). Several resistance management strategies have been suggested for the horn fly. Among those strategies that have been investigated are insect growth Figure 8.4. The horn fly (a biting muscoid fly)—a significant pest regulators and ivermectin as a feed through (insecti- of pastured cattle worldwide. Photo courtesy of D. cide feed additives are incorporated into the feed, pass W. Watson, North Carolina State University. through the animal, and prevent insect larval development in the manure) or a bolus (insecticide is for- these insects may move with changing weather pat- mulated into a large pill or tablet that, when admin- terns (Hogsette and Ruff 1985; Petersen and Meyer istered to an animal, slowly releases insecticide into 1983). Subsequent analysis of isozymes from dispers- the digesting feed, preventing insect development in ing stable flies indicated that these insects may move the manure). Concern for their effects on nontarget with frontal systems over great distances (Jones, C. species, and difficulty of administration to animals are J. et al. 1991). Stable flies collected from Minnesota factors that have limited acceptance of these meth- and Iowa showed that substantial gene flow occurs ods (Floate 1998; Kunz et al. 1999). Resistance man- among populations in these contiguous states (Kraf- agement also may include alternating active ingredi- sur 1967). ents to delay the onset of pyrethroid resistance and to allow pyrethroid-susceptible populations to enter the gene pool. Rotational tagging requires producers Range Cattle Integrated Pest Management to change active ingredients every 1 or 2 years to de- American cattle producers have not faced severe lay resistance onset. Ear tags were used by 39.5% of pest-control problems since the screwworm fly was the Texas beef cattle producers, and organophosphate eradicated from North America (Graham and Hour- (OP) ear tags were used predominantly in a Kansas rigan 1977). This well-recognized eradication pro- pesticide use survey (Cress et al. 1995; Hall, Hollo- gram relied on the inundative release of sterile male way, and Hoelscher 1994). Of the 20 types of ear tags (SM) screwworm flies. Sterile flies successfully mat- now on the market, half are OP tags. Resistance to 160 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

OP tags is developing in horn fly populations in cer- biological control component of IPM programs. Dung tain regions of the country, but resistance onset may beetles destroy the dung pat, thus decreasing the sur- be postponed by means of proper management and tag vival of horn fly larvae. The imported dung beetle On- rotation (Barros et al. 2001). thophagus gazella has been established in Texas, Cal- The mechanisms of diapause have been investigat- ifornia, and Georgia (Kunz et al. 1999). Onthophagus ed and simulation models developed (Kunz et al. 1999; taurus has become established throughout much of Lysyk 1999). It is thought that the manipulation of the South, from North Carolina to California (Finch- diapausing (overwintering as pupae) strains and non- er 1990). To date, the effect of these beetles on horn diapausing strains may have management potential fly populations is unknown. Surprisingly, no parasites by decreasing overwintering hardiness. or predators specific to horn flies have been identified. The potential for biological control of the horn fly As with the screwworm project, the SM release has not been evaluated fully. For example, the mi- technique was demonstrated to affect horn fly repro- crobial ecology of the horn fly may provide a means duction (Kunz et al. 1999). The combined use of an of control. The presence of endophytes in forage grass- insect growth regulator, methoprene, and released es may have an effect on horn fly survival (Dougher- sterile flies eliminated horn flies from a portion of an ty et al. 1998). Dung pat and midgut microflora in- island. As in the screwworm project, the released SM fluence the growth, development, and survival of the flies mated with the native population, and infertile horn fly larva (Perotti et al. 2000). eggs resulted. Similarly, competition and predation by other arthropods within the dung pat are suspected to affect horn fly survival (Kunz et al. 1999). For example, Swine Integrated Pest Management dung beetles have great potential for inclusion as a Arthropods of importance to swine production include the itch mite, the hog louse, the house fly, the stable fly, and the cockroach (Watson 2002). Manage- ment of these pests decreases disease risk and production losses resulting from poor growth and development and inefficient feed conversion (Holscher et al. 1999). Mange is an inflammatory skin condition caused by the itch mite Sarcoptes scabiei, an obligate parasite that tunnels in the epidermis of pigs (Figure 8.5). The hog louse, Haematopinus suis, is an obligate blood-feeding parasite. Infested animals scratch vigorously and rub against objects for relief. Mites and lice can be found on pigs throughout the year but are most noticeable during the winter (Davis and Moon 1990). The primary means of transmission is direct contact with infested pigs (Davis and Moon 1990). Strict biosecurity, through restricted movement of people and equipment and through rodent management, prevents the establishment of itch mites and hog lice (Holscher et al. 1999). Isolation and prophylactic treatment of all new stock ensures the introduction of pest-free animals into the herd. Injectable endectocides and pour-on or spray formulations of parasiticides are very effective in the management of itch mites and lice on swine (Arends, Skogerboe, and Ritzhaupt 1999). Biological control, host resistance, and insect growth regulators are unavailable for the control of mites and lice on swine. The house fly and the stable fly are relatively mi- Figure 8.5. Sarcoptic mange mite infestations adversely affect the performance of hogs and other livestock. Photo nor pests in liquid-waste management systems. courtesy of J. J. Arends, JABB, Inc. Largely unsuitable for fly development, lagoons pro- Food Animal Integrated Pest Management 161 vide relatively inexpensive, simple swine-waste treat- affect the young growing pig (Waldvogel et al. 1999). ments that decrease nutrient content and biological Control and management of Oriental and German activity before land application (Rutz and Axtell cockroaches can be accomplished through the appli- 1978). Fly management in solid-waste systems is dif- cation of conventional insecticides as residual surface ficult, especially when pigs are kept on straw bedding. sprays and baits (Wickham 1995). Pyrethroid and Manure and urine mixed with bedding promote fly OP insecticides are used commonly in swine produc- growth and development. In solid-waste systems, tion. Although insecticide resistance has developed IPM programs such as those in dairies and feedlots in the urban setting, it has not been documented in provide satisfactory control of house and stable flies. swine production. Inorganic insecticides such as bo- The cockroach has become an increasingly impor- ric acids and diatomaceous earth also have been used tant pest in swine production in recent years (Wald- to decrease pesticide exposures (Cochran 1995; vogel et al. 1999). Occasionally, predators or parasi- Kaakeh and Bennett 1997). toids attack the Oriental cockroach, Blatta orientalis, The entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium and the German cockroach, Blattella germanica (Fig- anisopliae has been used to help manage cockroach- ure 8.6). Nondiscriminating cockroaches feed on var- es. Parasitoids targeting the oothecae have been cul- ious foods, including animal feeds and feces. The eco- tured and released to help decrease cockroach populations (Pawson and Gold 1993). Parasitoids are least effective against the German cockroach, which carries the ootheca for several weeks. Poultry Fly Management

Muscoid flies (Musca domestica and Fannia spp.) are the primary pests of dry-waste systems for layer, broiler breeder, and other types of production systems in which manure is allowed to accumulate beneath cages or slats. Other species often associated with poultry house manure are dump flies (Hydrotaea = Ophyra aenescens and H. ignava = leucostoma), soldier flies (Hermetia illucens), fruit flies (Drosophila repleta), and, on rare occasions, the stable fly (Stom- Figure 8.6. The German cockroach—an emergent structural pest in confinement swine production. Photo cour- oxys calcitrans) (Arends and Stringham 1992). Blow- tesy of M. Stringham, North Carolina State University. flies also may be present where broken eggs accumulate or daily mortality is handled improperly. On the nomic importance of cockroach infestations in swine whole, however, none of these species is as pestifer- production remains to be documented. The cockroach ous in the poultry house environment as house flies population has the potential to expand from hundreds (M. domestica) or lesser house flies (Fannia spp.). to thousands of individuals, thereby posing problems Efforts to manage house flies invariably decrease the to both workers and swine (Waldvogel et al. 1999). incidence of associated fly species. German and Oriental cockroaches are recognized as Monitoring is encouraged so that changes in the possible disease vectors, and hypersensitivity to cock- manure environment or house fly population can be roach allergens is quite common among humans detected. Decisions about timing and targeting of pes- (Brenner, Koehler, and Patterson 1987; Kopanic, ticide treatments and other interventions depend on Sheldon, and Wright 1994). consistent monitoring. Manure condition, “drinkers” Although biosecurity may be in force, cockroach- (water ‘fountains’), and larval activity are monitored es undermine it by moving readily between barns and visually at regular intervals to detect wet spots and nurseries (Waldvogel et al. 1999). Swine suffer from leaks and to discover concentrations of fly larvae. numerous mechanically transmitted disease agents, Baited traps, spot cards, and sticky cards or ribbons including mycotoxins, bacteria, and viruses (Taylor are used to monitor fly populations (Hogsette, Jacobs, 1995). Porcine reproductive and respiratory syn- and Miller 1993; Lysyk and Axtell 1986). Action drome, gastroenteritis, and endoparasites severely thresholds, namely, fly or speck counts that warrant 162 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies intervention, depend on the needs of the specific site. ate. Their effectiveness is limited, however, by the The principle objectives of fly IPM in poultry houses need for continual maintenance or replacement—a are to decrease manure moisture and to effect biolog- time-consuming task considering that multiple devic- ical control. Drinker management, ventilation, sani- es are needed for each poultry house to maintain ad- tation, site drainage, building maintenance, dietary equate fly control. The high cost of devices such as adjustments, and other cultural practices that mini- the specialized electrical grids ($400 to $600 each) mize the introduction of excess moisture and encour- tested for use in caged layer houses is another limit- age drying are essential. Manure moisture below 50% ing factor that must be considered (Rutz and Scoles inhibits fly breeding (Fatchurochim, Geden, and Ax- 1988). tell 1989; Mullens, Hinkle, and Szijj 1996) and pro- Decreased reliance on pesticides is a goal of fly IPM motes colonization by a variety of beneficial arthro- in poultry production. Fewer pesticides minimize pods by improving their ability to find prey (Axtell environmental and human risks and allow for more 1999; Legner 1971). Parasitoids (Muscidifurax spp. effective management of pesticide resistance. Anoth- and Spalangia spp.), predaceous beetles (Carcinops er, less obvious, reason—that of managing pesticide pumilio) (Figure 8.7), and predatory mites (Macroche- use—is equally important. Although pesticides con- les muscaedomesticae) (Figure 8.8) are the principal tinue to play a role in managing house fly populations,

Figure 8.7. The hister beetle (Carcinops pumilio)—a valuable Figure 8.8. Macrochelids (and other predaceous mites) feed on predator of muscoid flies in poultry houses. Photo fly eggs deposited in the manure of poultry houses. courtesy of R. C. Axtell, North Carolina State Photo courtesy of R. C. Axtell, North Carolina State University. University. beneficial arthropods present, and they play major when applied inappropriately they often contribute to roles in the suppression of house fly populations in the severity and frequency of fly outbreaks (Axtell and places where manure remains moderately dry (Geden, Arends 1990; Farrell 2001; Mandeville, Mullens, and Stinner, and Axtell 1998; Wills and Mullens 1991). Yu 1990). Most pesticides registered for use in poul- Parasitoids are available commercially and may be try production are broad-spectrum materials and released in poultry houses to augment natural popu- must be used with care to preserve the community of lations (Axtell 1999; Hunter 2002; Rutz and Patter- beneficial arthropods found in manure. Understand- son 1990). Releases are not always successful, how- ably, to prevent such an occurrence, IPM programs ever. Gaps in our knowledge of host-parasite discourage broadcast treatments of manure. The in- interactions in various manure and production envi- sect growth regulator cyromazine is the only excep- ronments, and the need to improve overall quality of tion and may be applied to manure as a larvicide with mass-reared parasites, are two factors hampering little effect on beneficial parasites and predators (Ax- efforts to use parasitoids reliably in house fly control tell and Edwards 1983; Wills, Mullens, and Mandev- (Geden, Smith, and Rutz 1992; Geden et al. 1999; ille 1990). Its use by the poultry industry is restrict- Kaufman et al. 2000). ed to layer, broiler breeder, and caged pullet Sticky ribbons, baited traps, and electrical grids production. The use of this important fly manage- can be used when fly populations are low to moder- ment tool has not been trouble free, however. Cyro- Food Animal Integrated Pest Management 163 mazine resistance, presumably due to overreliance or house flies. Additionally, the larvae have high nutri- application of sublethal concentrations, via feed tional value and can be harvested easily for use in through or spray applications, is known to occur (Pop- animal feeds. ischil et al. 1996; Scott et al. 2000; Shen and Plapp 1990; Sheppard et al. 1989). Pyriproxifen, an insect growth regulator labeled for general use in poultry, Beetle Management may be a fly-management option (Zhang and Shono The lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) 1997). It is being promoted as having minimal effects (Figure 8.10), the hide beetle (Dermestes maculatus), on beneficial arthropods in poultry houses, but addi- and the larder beetle (D. lardarius) are the primary tional field research is needed to evaluate that claim beetle pests of poultry (Axtell 1999). The lesser meal- thoroughly. worm is known to harbor a number of pathogens and The future of fly IPM in poultry operations likely parasites affecting birds (Arends 1997; Despins et al. will include several options in addition to those dis- 1994; Watson, Guy, and Stringham 2000). Its poten- cussed already. The fungal pathogens (Figure 8.9) tial to become a nuisance in infested litter spread on Entomophthora muscae, Beauveria bassiana, and land near residences (Hinchey 1997) and in the me- Metarhizium anisopliae and the bacterium Bacillus chanical transmission of pathogens such as Escheri- chia coli and Salmonella serovars to humans also is a concern (Jones, F. T. et al. 1991; McAllister, Steel- man, and Skeeles 1994; McAllister et al. 1996). It has been suggested that lesser mealworms are an effective biological control for manure-breeding flies (Wal- lace, Winks, and Voestermans 1985). The adults and larvae may help dry manure with their tunneling activity, and adults are minor predators of fly larvae, but the negative aspects of this pest limits its poten-

Figure 8.9. Fungal pathogens such as Metarhizium anisopliae (left) and Beauveria bassiana (right) hold promise as biocontrol agents for house flies and other manure- inhabiting pests of poultry and livestock. Photo courtesy of D. W. Watson, North Carolina State Uni- versity. thuringiensis show promise as fly management tools, but much work remains to be done before they can be deployed successfully (Geden, Rutz, and Steinkraus 1995; Mullens, Rodriguez, and Meyer 1987; Watson and Peterson 1993; Watson et al. 1995). Interesting- ly, two of the previously mentioned fly species also may be useful control agents. Larvae of the dump fly (Hydrotaea spp.) are predators of other fly species’ larvae. Refinements in ways to establish and to encourage Hydrotaea populations may provide a way of excluding houseflies (Hogsette and Washington 1995; Turner and Carter 1990). The black soldier fly (Her- metia illucens), whose larvae are exceptionally large and active, may provide yet another way to decrease house fly populations significantly in poultry houses (Sheppard 1983; Sheppard and Tomberlin 1999). Figure 8.10. The lesser mealworm—the predominant beetle pest Great numbers of soldier fly larvae churn manure into of poultry production. Photo courtesy of D. W. a more fluid state than is acceptable to ovipositing Watson, North Carolina State University. 164 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies tial for biological control. populations are sprayed on the litter after each flock Both dermestid beetles and lesser mealworms are in broiler and turkey production (Weaver 1996). The predominantly structural pests in most types of poul- soil surface also may be treated if old litter is cleaned try housing. Lesser mealworms are most abundant out completely after the removal of birds. Such pre- in deep-litter houses such as those used to grow tur- scription treatments sometimes decrease beetle pop- keys and broilers and in high-rise poultry houses (Pfi- ulations sufficiently over the course of several produc- effer and Axtell 1980; Rueda and Axtell 1997). Der- tion cycles to eliminate the need for treatment mestid beetles are less numerous in general but may between subsequent flocks. Unfortunately, beetle in- become serious pests in high-rise layer houses (Axtell festations often rebound after two or more flocks once 1999). Lesser mealworm populations can be huge, treatments are halted. Recycling litter for multiple often covering more than 70% of the manure surface flocks in broiler production makes beetle control more in high-rise layer houses or visibly churning the lit- difficult as well. Although intended to decrease pro- ter throughout an infested broiler or turkey house duction costs, this practice eliminates a useful cultur- (Geden et al. 1999). Lesser mealworm larvae and al practice (the physical removal of beetles with the adults are noted for insulation damage caused by their litter) from the beetle management equation. Pesti- tunneling. Dermestid beetles and larvae also tunnel cides are used in a similar manner to decrease lesser into insulation, but are better known for the damage mealworm and dermestid beetle infestations in breed- they cause structural timbers in high-rise layer er and caged-layer production; a single application can houses. be applied to bare soil before a new flock is placed. Management options for the control of these bee- Because flock cycles for these types of poultry often tle pests are limited and restricted mainly to the use exceed 12 months, treatments for beetle control some- of pesticides (Arends and Stringham 1992; Weaver times are applied to the manure beneath slats or cages 1996). Monitoring (visual or with sampling devices) while birds are present. This practice seldom is rec- is possible but impractical in many situations (Safrit ommended, however. In addition to the difficulty of and Axtell 1984; Stafford et al. 1988). Cultural prac- application, the broad-spectrum insecticides used of- tices are for the most part designed to augment pes- ten decimate the beneficial arthropods that play an ticide use. Cold weather, especially freezing, is some- important role in fly suppression (Axtell 1999). times an effective method of control. Between flocks, Prospects for advances in beetle management are poultry houses can be opened and the beetle popula- limited. Natural enemies of the lesser meal-worm tion exposed to subfreezing temperatures for at least exist, but only a few have been investigated for their a week during the winter (Arends and Stringham potential to aid in management. The fungus Beau- 1992). Where litter is left in place, it may be tilled to veria bassiana shows promise as a biocontrol agent, dissipate heat and to bring beetle life stages to the and the development of Bacillus thuringiensis for surface, where many will freeze. Poultry growers in beetle control also may be possible (Axtell 1999; locations where prolonged freezing temperatures are Steinkraus, Geden, and Rutz 1991). The protozoan less predictable must rely on alternative cultural prac- Gregarina alphitobii may predispose lesser meal- tices to decrease beetle populations. Frequent ma- worms to infection with a second, more virulent, pro- nure removal is one cultural practice that helps de- tozoan, Farinocystis tribolii, or the fungus B. bassi- crease beetle populations in caged layer houses. ana (Apuya et al. 1994; Steinkraus, Brooks, and Similarly, total removal of litter from broiler and tur- Geden 1992). Still, it likely will be some time before key houses after each flock helps suppress lesser a commercial product is available. mealworm numbers by physically removing them from the poultry house (Geden et al. 1999). The down- side of these practices is that fresh litter may not be Ectoparasite Management available and old litter must be reused. The cost of In general, ectoparasite infestations are restrict- equipment for more-frequent manure removal or of ed to layer and breeder flocks remaining in produc- automated systems also may be prohibitive for many tion for 12 months or longer. Broilers and market producers. Recently, barriers against beetle move- turkeys seldom are affected because they are sold to ment have been used successfully in high-rise layer market long before ectoparasite populations become houses (Geden and Carlson 2001). Although beetles well established (Axtell 1999). Northern fowl mites are not controlled, barriers prevent damage to insu- (Ornithonyssus sylviarum) (Figure 8.11), chicken lation and to wood above the manure collection area. mites (Dermanyssus gallinae), bedbugs (Cimex lectu- Pesticide treatments to suppress lesser mealworm larius), and chicken lice (mainly Menacanthus spp.) Food Animal Integrated Pest Management 165

that protect exposed edges of insulation beneath eaves and at building corners will help keep wild birds out of poultry houses. Strict biosecurity decreases the likelihood of moving an identified ectoparasite problem between poultry houses or between poultry farms and helps prevent the spread of infestations to workers’ homes. Coverall changes for workers as they move between poultry houses and farms is an important first step toward stopping the spread of infestation. Sanitizing egg flats and other transportable poultry- or egg-handling equipment, sanitizing transport vehicles, and routing service vehicles from clean to infested farms are other practices used to decrease or to eliminate the spread of ectoparasites (Arends and Stringham 1992; Axtell and Arends 1990). The Figure 8.11. The northern fowl mite—the most common ecto- elimination of ectoparasite infestations in pullet flocks parasite of layer and breeder birds. Photo courtesy before they are moved to layer houses is necessary to of D. W. Watson, North Carolina State University. contain outbreaks (Geden et al. 1999). Similar cultural practices are used in pullet production to pre- are the ectoparasites most often reported in the poul- vent the introduction of infested replacement birds try industry (Arends and Stringham 1992). Of these, into production flocks and to ensure that new flocks the northern fowl mite occurs most frequently have no pre-existing infestations. (Hogsette et al. 1991). Most of the common ectopara- The detection of different ectoparasites requires sites of poultry are blood feeders believed to dimin- different monitoring strategies. Bedbugs and chick- ish bird performance although economic studies (pri- en mites are found feeding on host birds only at night. marily of the northern fowl mite) have produced Although skin lesions caused by the bites of chicken conflicting results in this regard (Arends, Robertson, mites and bedbugs may be seen on individual birds, and Payne 1984; Loomis et al. 1970). Poultry mites careful inspection of the premises is the most practi- and bedbugs also have been reported to cause transi- cal approach to detecting these pests (Arends and tory skin irritations and other allergic reactions in Stringham 1992). Northern fowl mites and chicken poultry workers (Schofield and Dolling 1993; Varma lice are obligate parasites that live on their hosts. 1993). Three additional ectoparasites of poultry— Monitoring relies on the capture of individual birds turkey chiggers (Neoschoengastia americana), stick- and their examination for the presence of mites or lice. tight fleas (Echidnophaga gallinacea), and fowl ticks Bird and premise inspections are suited best to small- (Argas spp.)—commonly reported in the review liter- er production flocks in which daily management du- ature (Arends 1997) are no longer important pests of ties can be adjusted to accommodate monitoring ef- modern commercial production because of changes in forts. Larger flocks often require that a minimum of standard flock-management practices. There may be 50 birds be examined (Arends and Stringham 1992)— a resurgence of these ectoparasites, however, as the a time-consuming task that often is neglected when practice of free-range production becomes more prev- a single employee is responsible for overseeing the alent in response to the demands of a growing organic operation of an automated layer house containing ap- market. proximately 100,000 laying hens (Geden et al. 1999). Prevention is the most effective pest management Alternative approaches to ectoparasite monitoring tool for the control of ectoparasite infestations. Wild have been evaluated and may prove more satisfacto- birds are a common source of ectoparasites in poul- ry once developed fully (Mullens, Hinkle, and Szijj try flocks (Arends 1997; Kells and Surgeoner 1997). 2000). The shift to closed, environmentally controlled hous- Pesticides remain the most effective method of con- ing in layer production has done much to decrease the trol for established ectoparasite infestations. Car- incidence of ectoparasite infestation associated with bamates, OPs, and pyrethroids are generally effective wild birds over the years (Geden et al. 1999). Build- for direct application to birds and as premise treating design and exclusion practices, such as closure of ments, but the total number of active ingredients entry points with screening or other material, prop- available for use is limited (Fletcher and Axtell 1991, erly fitted entry doors, and construction techniques 1993). Permethrin-impregnated strips have been 166 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies used to control northern fowl mites in layers and to the survival of the industry is the development of breeders with a degree of success (Axtell 1991; Hall alternative manure handling systems that alleviate et al. 1984). Pyrethroid resistance in chicken mites environmental concerns, decrease manure solids, re- raises questions, however, about the continued effi- cycle nutrients, and yet provide value-added products cacy of pyrethroids in general and the wisdom of us- such as feed supplements, compost, or vermiculture ing slow-release devices in particular (Beugnet et al. substrate (Lo, Lau, and Liao 1993; Mikkelsen 1999; 1997). Light oils and insecticidal soaps have been Sheppard et al. 1994). shown to control poultry mites and may prove useful Basic studies of dispersal, population dynamics, as alternatives to traditional pesticides if concerns and behavior under diverse production or waste-han- about associated air sac infections in birds are ad- dling systems are lacking for flies, beetles, and other dressed (Geden et al. 1999; McKeen, Loomis, and pests of food animals. Crucial to developing IPM Dunning 1983; Schering-Plough 1995). strategies is an understanding of the biology and the Only when applied correctly do sprays and dusts ecology of naturally occurring biological control agents provide satisfactory control as premise treatments (Axtell 1999; Rutz and Watson 1998). Nuisance and (Arends and Stringham 1992). Litter and manure public health hazards, including cockroaches and flies must be removed and houses thoroughly cleaned be- involved in the transmission of foodborne and antibi- fore such treatments are applied to control chicken otic-resistant pathogens, must be studied. More prac- mites, bedbugs, and lice. Because chicken mites and tical and accurate ways of monitoring ectoparasites bedbugs can live a considerable period without feed- and other common pests are needed to improve the ing and are likely to remain hidden in protected loca- timing and effectiveness of IPM interventions. Alter- tions throughout the house, multiple treatments are natives for conventional insecticide applications are necessary to eliminate infestations before birds are needed, as are safe, effective, environmentally com- reintroduced (Stringham 1994). Spray or dust treat- patible IPM strategies. ments of birds present additional problems. To be effective, treatment must penetrate the feathers to reach ectoparasites on the skin (Arther and Axtell Appendix A. Abbreviations and 1982). Additionally, because the residual life of registered pesticides applied to birds is shorter than the Acronyms life cycle of most ectoparasites, a second application IPM integrated pest management often is required for acceptable control. OP organophosphate The use of biological control for ectoparasites is SM sterile male largely undeveloped, but future research may lead to effective biopesticides. Three fungi and a single bacterium have been shown to exhibit activity against mites and other ectoparasites. Trenomyces histoph- Appendix B. Glossary torus is a fungus originally isolated from chicken lice Diapausing. Overwintering as pupae. that has potential for use (Meola and DeVaney 1976). Mange. Mange is an inflammatory skin condition Mycotoxins produced by the fungi Beauveria bassiana caused by the itch mite, Sarcoptes scabiei, an ob- and Metarhizium anisopliae have insecticidal activi- ligate parasite that tunnels in the epidermis of ty that may prove useful in the control of mites and pigs other poultry pests (Grove and Pople 1980). The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis was shown to be toxic to at least one species of sheep louse and may prove equally effective against the chicken-biting louse and Literature Cited the northern fowl mite (Drummond, Miller, and Pin- Apuya, L. C., S. M. Stringham, J. J. Arends, and W. M. Brooks. nock 1992; Mullens et al. 1988). 1994. Prevalence of protozoan infections in darkling beetles from poultry houses in North Carolina. J Invertebr Pathol 63:255–259. Arends, J. J. 1997. External parasites and poultry pests. Pp.785– Future Needs for Food Animal 813. In B. W. Calnek (ed.). Diseases of Poultry. 9th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames. Integrated Pest Management Arends, J. J. and S. M. Stringham. 1992. Poultry Pest Manage- Waste management continues to be a serious con- ment. Publication AG–474. Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 30 pp. cern for livestock and poultry producers. Essential Arends, J. J., S. H. Robertson, and C. S. Payne. 1984. Impact of Food Animal Integrated Pest Management 167

northern fowl mite on broiler breeder flocks in North Carolina. (Diptera) oviposition and larval development in poultry manure Poult Sci 63:1457–1461. of various moisture levels. J Entomol Sci 24:224–231. Arends, J. J., T. L. Skogerboe, and L. K. Ritzhaupt. 1999. Persis- Fincher, G. T. 1990. Biological control of dung-breeding flies: Pests tent efficacy of doramectin and ivermectin against experimen- of pastured cattle in the United States. Pp. 137–151. In D. A. tal infestations of Sarcoptes scabiei var. suis in swine. Vet Par- Rutz and R. S. Patterson (eds.). Biocontrol of Arthropods Affect- asitol 82:71–79. ing Livestock and Poultry. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Arther, F. H. and R. C. Axtell. 1982. Comparisons of permethrin 316 pp. formulations and application methods for northern fowl mite Fletcher, M. G. and R. C. Axtell. 1991. Susceptibilities of north- control on caged laying hens. Poult Sci 61:4879–4884. ern fowl mite, Ornithonyssus sylviarum (Acarina: Macronys- Axtell, R. C. 1991. Control of northern fowl mites in poultry. Pp. sidae), and chicken mite, Dermanyssus gallinae (Acarina: Der- 639–646. In F. Dusbabek and V. Bukva (eds.). Modern Acarol- manyssidae), to selected acaricides. Exp & Appl Acarol ogy: Proceedings of the VIII International Congress of Acarolo- 13:137–142. gy, Ceské Budekpvoce, Czechoslovakia, August 6–11, 1990. Fletcher, M. G. and R. C. Axtell. 1993. Susceptibility of the bed- Axtell, R. C. 1999. Poultry integrated pest management: Status bug, Cimex lectularius L., to selected insecticides and various and future. IPM Rev 4:53–73. treated surfaces. Med Vet Entomol 7:69–72. Axtell, R. C. and J. J. Arends. 1990. Ecology and management of Floate, K D. 1998. Off-target effects of ivermectin on insects and arthropod pests of poultry. Annu Rev Entomol 35:101–126. on dung degradation in southern Alberta, Canada. Bull Ento- Axtell, R. C. and T. D. Edwards. 1983. Efficacy and non-target mol Res 88:25–35. effects of Larvadex®‚ as a feed additive for controlling house flies Geden, C. J. and D. A. Carlson. 2001. A mechanical barrier for in caged-layer poultry manure. Poult Sci 62:2371–2377. preventing climbing by lesser mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebri- Barros, A. T. M., J. Ottea, D. Sanson, and L. Foil. 2001. Horn fly onidae) and hide beetle (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) larvae in (Diptera: Muscidae) resistance to organophosphate insecticides. poultry houses. J Econ Entomol 94:1610–1617. Vet Parasitol 2021:1–14. Geden, C. J., R. E. Stinner, and R. C. Axtell. 1988. Predation by Beugnet, F., C. Chauve, M. Gauthey, and L. Beert. 1997. Resis- predators of the house fly in poultry manure: Effects of preda- tance of the red poultry mite to pyrethroids in France. Vet Rec tor density, feeding history, interspecific interference, and field 140:577–579. conditions. Environ Entomol 17:320–329. Brenner, R. J., P. G. Koehler, and R. S. Patterson. 1987. Health Geden, C. J., L. Smith, and D. A. Rutz. 1992. Rapid deterioration implications of cockroach infestations. Infect Med 4: 349–360. of searching behavior, host destruction, and fecundity of the Bruce, W. G. 1964. The history and biology of the horn fly, Hae- parasitoid Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) matobia irritans (Linnaeus): With comments on control. Tech- in culture. Ann Entomol Soc Am 85:179–187. nical Bulletin Number 157. Agricultural Experiment Station Geden, C. J., D. A. Rutz, and D. C. Steinkraus. 1995. Virulence of and Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Ser- different isolates and formulations of Beauveria bassiana for vice, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Raleigh, North Carolina. 32 pp. house flies and the parasitoid Muscidifurax raptor. Biol Con- Campbell, J. B., I. L. Berry, J. Chirico, B. C. Clymer, G. L. Greene, trol 5:615–621. R. D. Hall, S. R. Skoda, G. D. Thomas, R. A. Weinzierl, and J. Geden, C. J., J. J. Arends, R. C. Axtell, D. R. Barnard, D. M. Gay- B. Welch. 1999. Confined cattle summary. Pp. 120–126. In J. don, L. A. Hickle, J. A. Hogsette, W. F. Jones, B. A. Mullens, M. A. Hogsette and C. J. Geden (eds.). Research and Extension P. Nolan, Jr., M. P. Nolan, III, J. J. Petersen, and D. C. Shep- Needs for Integrated Pest Management for Arthropods of Veter- pard. Poultry summary. 1999. Pp. 2–22. In J. A. Hogsette inary Importance. Proceedings of a workshop in Lincoln, Ne- and C. J. Geden (eds.). Proceedings of the Research and Exten- braska, April 12–14, 1994. Center for Medical, Agricultural, and sion Needs for Integrated Pest Management for Arthropods of Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Veterinary Importance Workshop. Proceedings of a workshop Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, Florida. in Lincoln, Nebraska, April 12–14, 1994. Center for Medical, Cochran, D. G. 1995. Toxic effects of boric acid on the German cock- Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Re- roach. Experientia 51:561–563. search Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, Cress, D. C, D. E. Mock, G. L. Greene, T. J. Byram, E. J. Theissen, Florida. C. Barnes, and B. Schmitz. 1995. 1994 Cattle Pesticide Sum- Graham, O. H. and J. L. Hourrigan. 1977. Eradication programs mary. Kansas agricultural chemical usage. Cooperative Ex- for the arthropod parasites of livestock. J Med Entomol 13:629– tension Service, Kansas State University, Manhattan. 54 pp. 658. Davis, D. P. and R. D. Moon. 1990. Dynamics of swine mange: A Greene, G. L., Y. J. Guo, and H. Y. Chen. 1998. Parasitization of critical review. J Med Entomol 27:727–737. house fly pupae (Diptera: Muscidae) by Spalangia nigroaenea Despins, J. L., R. C. Axtell, D. A. Rives, J. S. Guy, and M. D. Fick- (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) in cattle feedlot environments. en. 1994. Transmission of enteric pathogens of turkeys by dark- Biol Control 12:7–13. ling beetle larva (Alphitobius diaperinus). J Appl Poult Res 3:1– Grove, J. F. and M. Pople. 1980. The insecticidal activity of beau- 5. veracin and enniatin complex. Mycopathologia 70:103–105. Dougherty, C. T., F. W. Knapp, L. P. Bush, J. E. Maul, and J. Van Hall, K. D., R. L. Holloway, and C. E. Hoelscher. 1994. Texas Beef Willigen. 1998. Mortality of horn fly (Diptera: Muscidae) lar- Cattle Pest Control Practices. Agricultural and Environmen- vae in bovine dung supplemented with Loline alkaloids from tal Safety, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A & M, tall fescue. J Med Entomol 35:798–803. College Station. 80 pp. Drummond, R. O., K. Miller, and D. E. Pinnock. 1992. Toxicity of Hall, R. D., J. M. Vandepopuliere, W. Jaynes, and F. J. Fischer. Bacillus thuringiensis against Damalinia ovis (Phthiraptera: 1984. A new in-cage treatment system for control of northern Mallophaga). J Invert Pathol 60:102–103. fowl mites on laying hens. Poult Sci 63:628–632. Farrell, J. 2001. “Complaints about farm fester.” St. Petersburg Hinchey, F. 1997. “Bugged residents sue over beetles.” The Co- Times, May 19, pg. 1. lumbus Dispatch, October 2, Pp. 1–2. Fatchurochim, S., C. J. Geden, and R. C. Axtell. 1989. Filth fly Hogsette, J. A. and J. P. Ruff. 1985. Stable fly (Diptera: Muscidae) 168 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

migration in northwest Florida. Environ Entomol 14:170–175. mary. Pp. 70–120. In J. A. Hogsette and C. J. Geden (eds.). Hogsette, J. A. and F. Washington. 1995. Quantitative mass pro- Research and Extension Needs for Integrated Pest Management duction of Hydrotaea aenescens (Diptera: Muscidae). J Econ for Arthropods of Veterinary Importance. Proceedings of a work- Entomol 88:1238–1242. shop in Lincoln, Nebraska, April 12–14, 1994. Center for Med- Hogsette, J. A., J. F. Butler, W. V. Miller, and R. D. Hall. 1991. ical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Annotated bibliography of the northern fowl mite, Ornithonys- Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, sus sylviarum (Canestrini & Fanzago) (Acari: Macronyssidae). Florida. Entomol Soc Am Misc Pub 76:1–62. Legner, E. F. 1971. Some effects of the ambient arthropod com- Hogsette, J. A., R. D. Jacobs, and R. W. Miller. 1993. The sticky plex on the density and potential parasitization of muscoid flies card: A device for studying the distribution of adult house fly in poultry wastes. J Econ Entomol 64:111–115. (Diptera: Muscidae) populations in closed poultry houses. J Econ Lo, K. V., A. K. Lau, and P. H. Liao. 1993. Composting of separat- Entomol 86:450–454. ed solid swine wastes. J Agric Eng Res 54:307–317. Holscher, K. H., R. E. Williams, C. E. Hoelscher, G. R. Strother, D. Loomis, E. E., E. L. Bramhall, J. A Allen, R. A. Ernst, and L. L. E. Bay, J. L. Riner, W. F. Lyon, R. D. Moon, and I. Hagsten. Dunning. 1970. Effects of the northern fowl mite on white 1999. Swine IPM summary. Pp. 127–143. J. A. Hogsette and Leghorn chickens. J Econ Entomol 63:1885–1889. C. J. Geden (eds.). Research and Extension Needs for Integrat- Lysyk, T. J. 1999. Effect of temperature on time to eclosion and ed Pest Management for Arthropods of Veterinary Importance. spring emergence of postdiapausing horn flies (Diptera: Mus- Proceedings of a workshop in Lincoln, Nebraska, April 12–14, cidae). Environ Entomol 28:387–397. 1994. Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Ento- Lysyk, T. J. and R. C. Axtell. 1986. Comparison of baited jug-trap mology, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of and spot cards for sampling house fly, Musca domestica Agriculture, Gainesville, Florida. (Diptera: Muscidae), populations in poultry houses. Environ Hunter, C. D. 2002. Suppliers of beneficial organisms in North Entomol 14:815–819. America, May 3, (5 August 2002) selected pesticides on field population dynamics of parasitic Jones, C. J. and R. A. Weinzierl. 1997. Geographical and temporal Hymenoptera (Pteromalidae) in caged-layer poultry manure in variation in pteromalid (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) parasit- southern California, U.S.A. Med Vet Entomol 4:261–268. ism of stable fly and house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) pupae col- McAllister, J. C., C. D. Steelman, and J. K. Skeeles. 1994. Reser- lected from cattle feedlots in Illinois. Environ Entomol 26:421– voir competence of the lesser mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebri- 432. onidae) for Salmonella typhimurium (Eubacteriales: Enterobac- Jones, C. J., J. A. Hogsette, R. S. Patterson, D. E. Milne, G. D. teriaceae). J Med Entomol 31:369–372. Propp, J. F. Milio, L. G. Rickard, and J. P. Ruff. 1991. Origin McAllister, J. C., C. D. Steelman, J. K. Skeeles, L. A. Newberry, of stable flies (Diptera: Muscidae) on west Florida beaches: and E. E. Gbur. 1996. Reservoir competence of Alphitobius Electrophoretic analysis of dispersal. J Med Entomol 28:787– diaperinus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) for Escherichia coli 795. (Eubacteriales: Enterobacteriaceae). J Med Entomol 33:983– Jones, F. T., R. C. Axtell, D. V. Rives, S. S. Scheideler, F. R.Traver, 987. Jr., R. L. Walker, and M. J. Wineland. 1991. A survey of Sal- McKeen, W. D., E. C. Loomis, and L. L. Dunning. 1983. Effective- monella contamination in modern broiler production. J Food ness of Ectiban, egg oil, Rabon or Sevin for control of northern Protect 54:502–507. fowl mites on laying hens. Poult Sci 62:2343–2346. Kaakeh, W. and G. W. Bennett. 1997. Evaluation of trapping and Meola, S. and J. DeVaney. 1976. Parasitism of Mallophaga by vacuuming compared with low-impact insecticide tactics for Trenomyces histophtorus. J Invert Pathol 28:195–201. managing German cockroaches in residences. J Econ Entomol Mikkelsen, R. L. 1999. Vermicomposting for the treatment of swine 90:976–982. waste. Pp. 60–64. In G. B. Havenstein (ed.). Animal Waste Kaufman, P. E., S. J. Long, D. A. Rutz, and C. S. Glenister. 2000. Management Symposium. North Carolina State University, Prey- and density-mediated dispersal in Carcinops pumilio (Co- Raleigh. leoptera: Histeridae), a predator of house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) Mullens, B. A., J. L. Rodriguez, and J. A. Meyer. 1987. An epi- eggs and larvae. J Med Entomol 37:929–932. zootiological study of Entomophthora muscae in muscoid fly Kells, S. A. and G. A. Surgeoner. 1997. Sources of northern fowl populations on southern California poultry facilities, with em- mite (Ornithonyssus sylviarum) infestation in Ontario egg pro- phasis on Musca domestica. Hilgardia 55:1–41. duction facilities. J Appl Poult Res 6:221–228. Mullens, B. A., W. D. McKeen, J. L. Rodriquez, and J. D. Mande- Knapp, F. W., A. E. Charron, and J. G. Burg. 1992. Disease trans- ville. 1988. Evaluation of ABG–6280 (thuringiensin) for con- mission by the stable fly. Pp. 25–38. In G. D. Thomas and S. trol of northern fowl mite. Insectic & Acaracide Tests 13:405. R. Skoda (eds.). The Stable Fly: A Pest of Humans and Domes- Mullens, B. A., N. C. Hinkle, and C. E. Szijj. 1996. Role of the tic Animals. MP 64. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 148 pp. poultry manure pad in manure drying and its potential rela- Kopanic, R. J., B. W. Sheldon, and C. G. Wright. 1994. Cockroach- tionship to filth fly control. J Agric Entomol 13:331–337. es as vectors of Salmonella: laboratory and field trials. J Food Mullens, B. A., N. C. Hinkle, and C. E. Szijj. 2000. Monitoring Prot 57:125–132. northern fowl mites (Acari: Macronyssidae) in caged laying Krafsur, E. S. 1967. Allozyme variation in stable flies (Diptera: hens: Feasibility of an egg-based sampling system. J Econ Muscidae). Biochem Genet 31:231–240. Entomol 93:1045–1054. Kunz S. E, A. B. Broce, J. F. Butler, R. L. Byford, W. F. Fisher, L. Pawson, B. M. and R. E. Gold. 1993. Evaluating different release D. Foil, J. E. George, R. R. Gerhardt, F. R. Holbrook, H. G. Kin- strategies for the control of American cockroaches using the egg zer, J. E. Lloyd, L. Meek, R. J. Meyer, J. A. Miller, G. R. Mullen, parasitoid, Aprostocetus hagenowii. Pp. 407–413. In K. B. C. D. Steelman, and P. D. Teel. 1999. Range cattle IPM sum- Wildey and W. H. Robinson (eds.). Proceedings of the 1st Inter- Food Animal Integrated Pest Management 169

national Conference on Insect Pests in the Urban Environment. & Hall, Norwell, Massachusetts. ICIPUE, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom. Scott, J. G., T. G. Alefantis, P. E. Kaufman, and D. A. Rutz. 2000. Perotti, M. A., T. J. Lysyk, L. D. Kalischuk-Tymensen, L. J. Yanke, Insecticide resistance in house flies from caged-layer poultry and B. Selinger. 2000. Growth and survival of immature Hae- facilities. Pest Manage Sci 56:1–7. matobia irritans (Diptera: Muscidae) is influenced by bacteria Shen, J. and F. W. Plapp, Jr. 1990. Cyromazine resistance in the isolated from cattle manure and conspecific larvae. J Med En- house fly (Diptera: Muscidae): Genetics and cross-resistance tomol 38:180–187. to diflubenzuron. J Econ Entomol 83:1689–1697. Petersen, J. J. and J. K. Cawthra. 1995. Release of a gregarious Sheppard, D. C. 1983. House fly and lesser house fly control uti- Muscidifurax species (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) for the con- lizing the black soldier fly in manure management systems for trol of filth flies associated with confined beef cattle. Biol Con- caged laying hens. Environ Entomol 12:1239–1242. trol 5:279–284. Sheppard, D. C. and J. Tomberlin. 1999. Adverse effects on house Petersen, J. J. and J. A. Meyer. 1983. Characterization and sea- fly larvae when reared with black soldier fly larvae. In Proceed- sonal distribution of breeding sites of stable flies and house flies ings of 43rd Annual Livestock Insect Workers Conference, Chat- (Diptera: Muscidae) on eastern Nebraska feedlots and dairies. tanooga, Tennessee, June 27–30, 1999. J Econ Entomol 76:103–108. Sheppard, D. C., N. C. Hinkle, J. S. Hunter, III, and D. M. Gay- Pfieffer, D. G. and R. C. Axtell. 1980. Coleoptera of poultry ma- don. 1989. Resistance in constant exposure livestock insect nure in caged-layer houses in North Carolina. Environ Ento- control systems: A partial review with some original findings mol 9:21–28. on cyromazine resistance in house flies. Fl Entomol 72:360–369. Popischil, R., K. Szomm, M. Londershausen, I. Schroeder, A. Tu- Sheppard, D. C., G. L. Newton, S. A. Thompson, and S. Savage. ber, and R. Fuchs. 1996. Multiple resistance in the larger house 1994. A value-added manure management system using the fly Musca domestica in Germany. Pestic Sci 48:333–341. black soldier fly. Biores Tech 50:275–279. Rueda, L. M. and R. C. Axtell. 1997. Arthropods in litter of poul- Stafford, K. C., III, C. H. Collison, J. G. Burg, and J. A. Cloud. 1988. try (broiler chicken and turkey) houses. J Agric Entomol Distribution and monitoring lesser mealworms, hide beetles, 14:81–91. and other fauna in high-rise, caged-layer poultry houses. J Rutz, D. A. and R. C. Axtell. 1978. Factors affecting production of Agric Entomol 5:89–101. the mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, from anaerobic animal Steinkraus, D. C., C. J. Geden, and D. A. Rutz. 1991. Susceptibil- waste lagoons. Technical Bulletin 256. Agricultural Experi- ity of lesser mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to Beauvaria ment Station, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 32 pp. bassiana: Effects of host stage, formulation, substrate, and host Rutz. D. A. and R. S. Patterson (eds.). 1990. Biocontrol of Arthro- passage. J Med Entomol 28:314–321. pods Affecting Livestock and Poultry. Westview Press, Boulder, Steinkraus, D. C., W. M. Brooks, and C. J. Geden. 1992. Discov- Colorado. 316 pp. ery of the neogregarine Farinocystis tribolii and an eugregarine Rutz, D. A. and G. A. Scoles. 1988. Evaluation of fly-electrocuting in the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus. J Invert Pathol black light devices in caged-layer poultry facilities. Poult Sci 59:203–205. 67:871–877. Stringham, S. M. 1994. Ectoparasite and rodent management. Pp. Rutz, D. A. and D. W. Watson. 1998. Parasitoids as a component 70–76. In Proceedings of the 1994 Georgia Poultry Conference, in an integrated fly-management program on dairy farms. Pp. Gainesville. October 11–12, 1994. 185–201. In R. L. Ridgeway, M. Hoffman, C. S. Glenister, and Taylor D. J. 1995. Pig Diseases. 6th ed. St. Edmundsbury Press, M. Inscoe (eds.). Mass-Reared Natural Enemies: Applications, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, United Kingdom. 367 pp. Regulation, and Needs. Entomological Society of America Mono- Thomas, G. D., S. R. Skoda, D. R. Berkebile, and J. B. Campbell. graph, Annapolis, Maryland. 1996. Scheduled sanitation to reduce stable fly (Diptera: Mus- Rutz, D. A., C. J. Geden, and C. W. Pitts. 1993. Pest management cidae) populations in beef cattle feedlots. J Econ Entomol recommendations for dairy. Pennsylvania State and Cornell 89:411–414 . University Cooperative Extension Publication 10M493. Penn- Turner, E. C., Jr. and L. Carter. 1990. Mass rearing and intro- sylvania State University, University Park. 11 pp. duction of Ophyra aenescens (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Muscidae) Rutz, D. A., T. Fincher, J. George, R. Gerhardt, C. J. Jones, T. in high-rise caged layer houses to reduce house fly populations. Lysyk, R. W. Miller, C. Pitts, E. T. Schmidtman, and D. W. J Agric Entomol 7:247–257. Watson. 1999. Dairy cattle IPM Summary. Pp. 21–70. In J. A. Varma, M. R. G. 1993. Ticks and mites (Acari). Pp. 597–658. In Hogsette and C. J. Geden (eds.). Research and Extension Needs R. P. Lane and R. W. Crosskey (eds.). Medical Insects and Arach- for Integrated Pest Management for Arthropods of Veterinary nids. Chapman & Hall, Norwell, Massachusetts. Importance. Proceedings of a workshop in Lincoln, Nebraska, Waldvogel, M. G., C. B. Moore, G. W. Nalyanya, S. M. Stringham, April 12–14, 1994. Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Vet- D.W. Watson, and C. Schal. 1999. Integrated cockroach (Dic- erinary Entomology, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. De- tyoptera: Blattellidae) management in confined swine produc- partment of Agriculture, Gainesville, Florida. tion. Pp. 183–188. In W. H. Robinson, F. Rettich, and G. W. Safrit, R. D. and R. C. Axtell. 1984. Evaluation of sampling meth- Rambo (eds.). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference ods for darkling beetles (Alphitobius diaperinus) in litter of tur- on Urban Pests, Grafické Závody Hronov, Czech Republic, July key and broiler houses. Poult Sci 63:2369–2375. 19–22, 1999. Schering-Plough Animal Health. 1995. AccideTM Backgrounder Wallace, M. M. H., R. G. Winks, and J. Voestermans. 1985. The Technical Bulletin. American Scientific Laboratories, Union, use of the beetle, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: New Jersey. 30 pp. Tenebrionidae), for the biological control of poultry dung in high- Schofield, C. J. and W. R. Dolling. 1993. Bedbugs and kissing-bugs rise layer houses. J Austr Inst Agric Sci 51:214–219. (bloodsucking Hemiptera). Pp. 483–516. In R. P. Lane and R. Watson, D. W. 2002. Swine pest management. Pp. 815–817. In W. Crosskey (eds.). Medical Insects and Arachnids. Chapman David Pimentel (ed.). Encyclopedia of Pest Management. Mar- 170 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

cel Dekker Publishing, New York. Watson, D. W. and J. J. Petersen. 1993. Seasonal activity of En- Further Reading tomophthora muscae (Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales) in Axtell, R. C. 1986. Fly control in confined livestock and poultry Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) with reference to tem- production. Technical Monograph CGA 690 00034–A, Ciba– perature and humidity. Biol Control 3:182–190. Geigy Corporation, Agricultural Division, Greensboro, North Watson, D. W., C. J. Geden, S. J. Long, and D. S. Rutz. 1995. Ef- Carolina. 59 pp. ficacy of Beauveria bassiana for controlling the house fly and Axtell, R. C. 1999. Poultry integrated pest management: Status stable fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Biol Contr 5:405–411. and future. Integr Pest Manage Rev 4:53–73. Watson, D. W., J. S. Guy, and S. M. Stringham. 2000. Limited Axtell, R. C. 2002a. Fly Management Simulator (FMS), (5 August 2002) Alphitobius diaperinus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J Med Axtell, R. C. 2002b. Livestock Pest Expert System (LPES), (5 August 2002) Weaver, J. E. 1996. The lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperi- Axtell, R. C. 2002c. Poultry Pest Expert System (PPES), (5 August 2002) regulators and pyrethroids. J Agric Entomol 13:93–97. DeVaney, J. A. 1986. Symposium: Arthropods of economic im- Weinzierl, R. A. and C. J. Jones. 1998. Releases of Spalangia ni- portance to the poultry industry. Ecotoparasites. Poult Sci groaenea and Muscidifurax zaraptor (Hymenoptera: Pteroma- 65:649–656. lidae) increase rates of parasitism and total mortality of stable Fletcher, M. G., R. C. Axtell, R. E. Stinner, and L. R. Wilhoit. 1991. fly and house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) pupae in Illinois cattle Temperature-dependent development of immature Carcinops feedlots. J Econ Entomol 91:1114–1121. pumilio (Coleoptera: Histeridae), a predator of Musca domes- Wickham, J. C. 1995. Conventional insecticides. Pp. 109–148. In tica (Diptera: Muscidae). J Entomol Sci 26:99–108. M. K. Rust, J. M. Owens, and D. A. Reierson (eds.). Understand- Kettle, D. S. 1990. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2nd ed. ing and Controlling the German Cockroach. Oxford Universi- CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. 658 pp. ty Press, United Kingdom. Rueda, L. M. and R. C. Axtell. 1985. Guide to common species of Wieman, G. A., J. B. Campbell, J. A. Deshazer, and I. L. Berry. pupal parasites (Hymentoptera: Pteromalidae) of the house fly 1992. Effect of stable flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and heat stress and other muscoid flies associated with poultry and livestock on weight gain and feed efficiency of feeder cattle. J Econ En- manure. Bulletin 278. Agricultural Research Service, North tomol 85: 1835–1842. Carolina State University, Raleigh. 88 pp. Wills, L. E. and B. A. Mullens. 1991. Vertical distribution of dipter- Rutz, D. A. and R. S. Patterson (eds.). 1990. Biocontrol of Arthro- ous larvae and predatory arthropods in accumulated caged layer pods Affecting Livestock and Poultry. Westview Press, Boulder, poultry manure in southern California. J Agric Entomol 8:59– Colorado. 316 pp. 66. Wilhoit, L. R., R. E. Stinner, and R. C. Axtell. 1991. Computer Wills, L. E., B. A. Mullens, and J. D. Mandeville. 1990. Effects of simulation model of house fly management in confined animal pesticides on filth fly predators (Coleoptera: Histeridae, Sta- production systems. Technical Bulletin 296. Agricultural Re- phylinidae; Acarina: Macrochelidae, Uropodidae) in caged lay- search Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 81 pp. er poultry manure. J Econ Entomol 83:451–457. Williams, R. E., R. D. Hall, A. B. Broce, and P. J. Scholl (eds.). 1985. Zhang, L. and T. Shono. 1997. Toxicities of pyriproxifen to suscep- Livestock Entomology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jer- tible and resistant strains of houseflies. Appl Entomol Zool sey. 335 pp. 32:373–378. Wildlife-Damage Control 171

9 Wildlife-Damage Control

Wildlife damage management is an important as- the nature of the conflict, and other biological and pect of integrated pest management (IPM). Contem- social factors related to the problem. Understanding porary managers recognize the importance of practic- problem species refers to understanding the life his- es that prevent problems and those that address tory of the species, especially in relation to the prob- existing ones. Cultural practices coupled with exclu- lem at hand. Applying control methods refers to tak- sion, repellents, toxicants, and other lethal control ing the information gained from stages 1 and 2, to measures provide tools to address most mammalian develop an appropriate management program to al- wildlife damage situations. Public education and le- leviate or to decrease the conflict between human and gal and social considerations are becoming a major pest. Evaluating results allows an assessment of the component of wildlife damage efforts. Professionals decrease in damage relative to the costs of the con- are becoming increasingly aware of considerations trol and its effects on target and nontarget popula- that go beyond the biological. Effective allocation of tions and on the environment. Increasingly, empha- resources to solve problems caused by wildlife is ham- sis is being placed on the implementation of IPM pered by a lack of knowledge concerning the magni- systems in which several control methods are com- tude of such problems (Conover et al. 1995). bined, coordinated, and used simultaneously with Wildlife management is often thought of in terms other management practices. of protecting, enhancing, and nurturing wildlife populations and the habitat needed for their well-being. But many species require, at one time or another, Ungulates management actions to decrease conflicts with other wildlife species or with people. Damage Assessment Wildlife damage control is an increasingly important aspect of wildlife management because of ex- Ungulate (hoofed-animal) damage to various agri- panding human populations and intensifying land- cultural, forestry, and ornamental crops that is caused use practices. Concurrent with this growing need to by feeding, trampling, and antler rubbing is increas- limit the conflicts between wildlife and humans, pub- ing. Deer browsing in winter on buds of apple or on lic attitudes and environmental regulations are re- other fruit trees can decrease yields for the next year stricting use of some traditional tools of control, such (Austin and Urness 1989) or alter the growth pattern as toxicants and traps (Hygnstrom, Timm, and Lar- of tree limbs adversely (Harder 1970). Similar brows- son 1994). Agencies and individuals carrying out con- ing on nursery plants and in Christmas tree planta- trol programs are being scrutinized more carefully to tions can decrease or eliminate product value (Scott ensure that their actions are justified, environmen- and Townsend 1985). Browsing of hardwood saplings tally safe, and in the public interest. Thus, wildlife and young fir trees in regenerating forests can de- damage control activities must be based on sound crease growth rates, deform trees, and even cause economic, ecological, and sociological principles and plantation failures (Crouch 1976; Tilghman 1989). must be carried out as positive, necessary components Tree damage caused by antler rubbing can be a of overall wildlife management programs (Hygn- problem (Scott and Townsend 1985). Smooth-barked, strom, Timm, and Larson 1994). small trees (0.5 to 1 inch [in.] [1.3 to 2.5 centimeters Wildlife damage control programs can be thought {cm}] in diameter, at 6 in. [15 cm] above ground) such of as incorporating four stages: defining problems, as green ash, plum, and cherry, were preferred for understanding problem species ecology, applying con- antler rubbing by white-tailed deer invading an Ohio trol methods, and evaluating results. Defining prob- nursery (Nielsen, Dunlap, and Miller 1982). lems refers to determining the species and numbers Accurate estimates of economic loss from ungulate of animals causing the problem, the amount of loss, browsing and rubbing in orchards, nurseries, and re-

171 172 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

seldom browse on branches more than 1 in. (2.5 cm) in diameter. Moose and elk will gnaw the bark of aspen trees. When male ungulates rub the velvet from their antlers, the scarring is confined generally to the trunk area up to 3 ft (1 m) high (Pearce 1947).

Damage Prevention and Control Various exclusion methods often are crucial for damage prevention. Where ungulates are abundant or crops particularly valuable, fencing may be the only way to minimize damage. Several fencing designs are available to meet specific needs (Craven and Hygn- strom 1994). Temporary electric fences are useful in protecting garden and field crops during snow-free periods (Figure 9.2). Deer and elk are attracted to Figure 9.1. Deer damaging hay. Photo courtesy of J. Knight, Montana State University. these fences by smell (such as a coating of peanut butter) and are lured into contacting the fence with forestation projects are difficult to obtain. Losses in their noses. The resulting shock is a very strong neg- yield or tree value may accumulate for many years ative stimulus, and ungulates learn to avoid the after damage occurs and depend on other stresses, including rodent damage, inflicted on the plants. In 1983, Ohio growers reported average losses to deer of

$82 /acre (a.) ($204 / hectare [ha]) for orchards, $89 /a.

($219 / ha) for Christmas tree plantings, and $108 /a.

($268 / ha) for nursery plantings (Scott and Townsend 1985). Losses are estimated to be in the millions of dollars annually in certain U.S. states (Black et al. 1979; Connelly, Decker, and Wear 1987; Craven 1983). Deer also feed on various agricultural crops, especially young soybean plants and ripening ears of corn. Hygnstrom and Craven (1988) estimated a mean loss of 2,397 pounds of corn /a. (2,680 kilograms / ha) for 51 unprotected corn fields in Wisconsin. Yield losses in soybean fields are most severe when feeding occurs during the first week of sprouting (DeCalesta and Schwendeman 1978). Elk and deer in certain areas raid haystacks and cattle feedlots (Eadie 1954) (Figure 9.1).

Damage Identification Ungulates do not have an upper set of incisors. Thus, twigs or plants nipped by these hoofed species do not show the neat, sharp-cut edge left by most rodents and rabbits, but instead show a rough, shredded edge and usually a square or ragged break. Pearce (1947) observed that deer in the Northeast seldom browse higher than 6 feet (ft) (1.8 m) from a standing position, but are able to reach up to 8 ft (2.5 m) by rearing up on their hind legs. Elk and moose Figure 9.2. Electrical elk fence. Photo courtesy of J. Knight, browse to a height of approximately 10 ft (3 m). Deer Montana State University. Wildlife-Damage Control 173 fenced area. Permanent high-tensile electric fences be problems, contraception is unlikely to be applied provide year-round protection and are suited best to in rural/agricultural landscapes in the foreseeable high-value specialty or orchard crops. The electric future. The use of contraception for herd control is shocking power and the unique fence designs present suited best to urban parks, refuges, and other discrete both psychological and physical barriers to deer and areas. elk. This type of electric fence can be used even after One of the keys to success with frightening devic- the ground is frozen (Schmidt and Knight 2000). Per- es and repellents is to take action at the first sign of manent woven-wire fences provide the ultimate bar- a problem. It is difficult to change ungulates’ move- rier. They require little maintenance but are very ments or behavioral patterns once established. Ad- expensive to build. ditionally, frightening devices and repellents should Tree protectors such as plastic tree wrap or woven- be used when crops are most susceptible to damage, wire cylinders protect young trees from deer and elk. for example, during the silking to tasseling stages for Four-foot (1.2-m) woven-wire cylinders can keep deer field corn or during the blossom stage for soybeans from rubbing tree trunks with their antlers (Craven (Craven and Hygnstrom 1994). and Hygnstrom 1994). Frightening devices such as gas exploders, shell Wooden panels have been used traditionally to exclude deer and elk from haystacks. Stockyards also have been protected by welded-wire panels and woven wire. More recently, haystacks have been protected by wrapping with a plastic snow fence (Craven and Hygnstrom 1994). The material comes in 8-foot width rolls and is fairly light and easy to use. Appropriate cultural methods and habitat modifications will depend on habitat. Damage to ornamental plants can be minimized by selecting landscape and garden plants that are less preferred by deer and elk. In many instances, original landscape objectives can be met by planting species that have a degree of resistance to deer and elk damage (Hill and Knight 1998). Crops should be harvested as early as possible to Figure 9.3. White-tailed deer near a road in West Virginia. Photo limit the period of vulnerability to deer. Susceptible by Ken Hammond, U.S. Department of Agriculture. crops should be planted as far from wooded cover as practical, so as to decrease the potential for severe crackers, fireworks, and gunfire can provide rapid but damage. Habitat modification is not recommended. temporary relief from ungulate damage. Ungulates Destruction of wooded or brushy cover as a means of tend to develop strategies to avoid or to build toler- decreasing deer use would destroy valuable habitat ance of frightening devices. for other wildlife. And because deer and elk forage Repellents are suited best for use in orchards and over a large area, it is unlikely that all available cov- gardens and on ornamental plants. High cost, use er would be on the same farm or ranch that is sus- limitations, and variable effectiveness make most taining damage. repellents impractical on row crops, pastures, or oth- Lure crops have been planted to attract deer away er large areas. Success with repellents is evidenced from highways and crop fields where deer tradition- by decrease, and not by the elimination, of damage. ally have caused damage (Figure 9.3). Their effective- Repellents are described in terms of mode of action ness has been variable, and concern has been raised (i.e., “contact” or “area”). Contact repellents, applied that an artificial food source eventually may increase directly to plants, repel by taste. They are most ef- deer densities and concomitant problems. Specific fective when applied to trees and shrubs during the recommendations are not yet available regarding dormant period. New growth that appears after treat- plant selection and timing or proximity of lure crops. ment is unprotected. Almost all contact repellents Promising research on the use of chemosterilants may diminish the palatability of forage crops and and immunocontraception to decrease or to eliminate should not be used on plant parts destined for human reproduction is under way. Because specificity, effi- consumption (Craven and Hygnstrom 1994). cacy, and delivery of contraceptive agents continue to Applied near the plants to be protected, area repel- 174 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies lents repel deer and elk by odor alone. Such repellents Rodents usually are less effective than contact repellents but can be used in perimeter applications and in other Damage Assessment situations in which contact repellents cannot (Hygn- strom 1994). Rodents seldom are observed in the act of causing No toxicants are registered for deer or elk control. damage, and frequently their damage is difficult to Poisoning with any product for any reason is illegal measure. Nonetheless, assessments of damage have and unlikely to be tolerated by the public. indicated that rodents and other small mammals In special environments such as city parks, refug- cause tremendous annual losses of food and fiber in es, or suburban neighborhoods, it may be necessary the United States. In the late 1970s, forest animal or desirable to capture deer alive and to move them damage to Douglas fir and ponderosa pine in Wash- to other areas. Deer can be captured safely with rock- ington and Oregon was estimated to total $60 million et nets, drop-door box traps, or tranquilizer guns, but annually, and potential decreases in the total value these techniques are expensive and time consuming of forest resources was estimated at $1.83 billion and require the expertise of professional wildlife bi- (Black et al. 1979; Brodie et al. 1979). Although these ologists (Craven and Hygnstrom 1994). Live capture figures included losses attributable to ungulates, rodents and hares were responsible for much of the damage. Miller (1987) surveyed forest managers and natural resource agencies in 16 southeastern states and estimated annual wildlife-caused losses, primarily by beavers, to be $11.2 million on 70 million a. (28.4 million ha). An additional $1.6 million was spent to control wildlife damage on this land. Arner and Dubose (1982) estimated that economic loss to beavers exceeded $4 billion over a 40-year (yr) period on 988,000 a. (400,000 ha) in the southeastern United States. An- nual loss in Mississippi to nonimpounded timber was estimated at $215 million over a period of at least 10 yr (Bullock and Arner 1985). Rats cause substantial losses to sugarcane. Lefe- Figure 9.4. Elk grazing. Photo by Ken Hammond, U.S. Depart- bvre, Ingram, and Yang (1978) estimated annual loss-

ment of Agriculture. es to be approximately $6 million ($95 /a. [$235 / ha]) in one-third of the area producing sugarcane in Flor- ida. Hawaiian losses were reported to be in excess of and relocation is seldom a practical alternative un- $20 million / yr (Seubert 1984). Ferguson (1980) esti- less delicate public relations problems mandate live mated that voles caused losses that approached $50 removal as the only choice. million to apple growers in the eastern United States. Effective harvest and use of the legal deer and elk Losses of forage on rangelands to rodents, rabbits, and season are probably the most effective means of con- hares also are known to be extensive; accurate esti- trolling their populations (Craven and Hygnstrom mates of the monetary losses are difficult to obtain, 1994) (Figure 9.4). By permitting hunting, landown- however, because of the nature of the damage and the ers provide public access to a public resource while wide area over which it occurs (Marsh 1985). decreasing damage problems. Because of the daily Pearson and Forshey (1978) compared yields of and seasonal movements of deer and elk, only rarely apple trees visibly damaged by voles to those not does a single landowner control all the land a deer showing damage to determine the dollar losses in uses. As a result, neighboring landowners should gross return/tree. Richmond et al. (1987) determined cooperate. Landowners, the state wildlife agency, and decreases in growth, yield, and fruit size of apple trees local hunters should reach a consensus about a desir- damaged by pine vole populations of known size main- able population level for an area before deer are re- tained in enclosures around the trees. moved. In urban areas and parks where hunting is An index of rodent damage to sugarcane was de- generally prohibited, it may be necessary to use pro- veloped through sampling at harvest to determine the fessional sharpshooters to remove deer. percentage of stalks damaged (Lefebvre, Ingram, and Wildlife-Damage Control 175

Yang 1978). Forage losses have been estimated by mountain beavers, porcupines, and rabbits; debud- means of comparing production on areas with and ding—red squirrels and chipmunks (Dolbeer, Holler, without rodents (Foster and Stubbendieck 1980; Luce, and Hawthorn 1994). These characteristics can aid Case, and Stubbendieck 1981; Turner 1969). Sauer in identification of the species responsible, but posi- (1977) used exclusion cylinders to determine losses of tive identification should be made on the basis either forage to ground squirrels. Alsager (1977) described of species-specific signs (tracks, hair, droppings) or a method of determining forage production decreas- individual capture. es from pocket gopher damage. These methods are useful in evaluating the efficacy of control techniques. But loss estimates must be Damage Prevention and Control converted to accurate assessments of dollar loss to en- Because of the great number of potential rodent able cost-benefit analysis of control programs. This pest-species, a comprehensive description of preven- conversion is difficult, given the vast acreages in- tion and control techniques is beyond the scope of this volved and the variability in rodent populations. In chapter. General statements can be made regarding other situations, control may be necessary irrespec- the usual considerations attending application of IPM tive of cost (for example, when rats or mice are present principles to rodents. Detailed, species-specific infor- in homes or when diseases such as rabies or hantavi- mation can be found in the publication Prevention and rus are present). Control of Wildlife Damage, by Hygnstrom, Timm, These examples illustrate the complexity of dam- and Larson (1994). age situations and the need for more-accurate dam- With commensal rodents, the only certain solution age assessment methods, which constitute an area of is usually exclusion or elimination of all entry points high priority for future research. Lack of methods to protected structures (Dolbeer, Holler, and Haw- for determining damage levels has been a notewor- thorn 1994). It should be noted that these rodents are thy impediment to the development of cost-effective capable of chewing their own entry; thus management control strategies (Dolbeer, Holler, and Hawthorn requires ongoing effort. Barriers of small mesh hard- 1994). ware cloth can be used to exclude field rodents from young trees or gardens (Dolbeer, Holler, and Haw- thorn 1994). Beaver and muskrats also have been Damage Identification excluded by use of fencing. Exclusion of mice or voles Most rodents are secretive and not observed easi- from fields rarely is practical. ly; many are nocturnal (Dolbeer, Holler, and Haw- Cultural practices that modify structures or habi- thorn 1994). Often the investigator must rely on var- tat probably represent the greatest potential to min- ious signs such as tracks, trails, tooth marks, imize rodent problems. Sanitation practices, weed droppings, or burrows to determine the species doing control, grazing practices, crop rotation, grain buffer the damage. Trapping may be necessary to make a strips, and flood irrigation can affect rodent popula- positive identification of small rodents; often, more tions. Control of tap-rooted plants and selection of than one species is involved. damage-resistant varieties of alfalfa or tree seedlings Characteristics of the damage also may provide also will decrease rodent damage (Dolbeer, Holler, clues to the species involved. In orchards, for exam- and Hawthorn 1994). ple, major stripping of roots usually is caused by pine Other methods such as trapping and toxicants com- voles whereas damage at the root collar or on the monly are used to control rodents. The ability to con- trunk, up to the extent of snow depth, is caused most trol with repellents or ultrasonic devices has not been often by meadow voles (Dolbeer, Holler, and Haw- established. thorn 1994). In sugarcane, various species of rats gnaw stalks so that they are hollowed out between the internodes but usually not severed completely. Rab- Mammalian Predators bits, in contrast, usually gnaw through the stalks, leaving only the ring-shaped internodes. Damage Assessment Damage to plants can be grouped generally as follows: root damage—pocket gophers and pine voles; Mammalian predators always have been a concern trunk debarking—meadow voles, squirrels, porcu- to livestock producers. Wade and Bowns (1982) esti- pines, wood rats, rabbits, and mountain beavers; stem mated that the direct loss of sheep and goats to coy- and branch cutting—beavers, rabbits, meadow voles, otes in the United States ranged from $75 million to 176 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

$150 million annually. Pearson (1986), using a sum- situations, blood often appears on the sides, hind legs, mary of other studies and surveys, estimated the loss and tail areas. A calf can have its tail chewed off, and of sheep, lambs, and goats to predators (primarily its nose may have tooth marks or be completely coyotes) at $68,160,000 in the 17 western states in chewed by the predator when the tongue is eaten 1984. Terrill (1988), using data from all 50 states, (Bowns 1976). reported that from 1985 to 1987 annual losses of sheep Tracks and droppings alone are proof neither of and lambs to coyotes and other predators ranged from depredation nor of the species responsible for any $69 million to $83 million. In 1990, 490,000 sheep and depredation (Dolbeer, Holler, and Hawthorn 1994). lambs valued at $21.7 million and 129,400 goats val- Rather, when combined with other characteristics of ued at $5.6 million were lost to mammalian predators depredation, tracks and droppings can constitute ev- in the United States (NASS 1991). In 1991, the Na- idence that a particular predator is in the area and tional Agricultural Statistics Service estimated that can aid determinations of which species is causing the mammalian predators in the United States killed problem. 106,000 cattle and calves valued at $41.5 million (NASS 1992). Losses of poultry to predators, although not well documented, also are thought to be substan- Damage Prevention and Control tial (Dolbeer, Holler, and Hawthorn 1994). For exclusion, heavy woven-wire fencing at least Mammalian predators, especially red foxes, striped 10 ft (3 m) high is required to discourage predators skunks, raccoons, and mink, significantly affect wa- such as coyotes, raccoons, fox, bears, and mountain terfowl nesting success in small wetland areas sur- lions. Overhead fencing also is necessary for perma- rounded by agricultural lands. A study in North Da- nent and predictable protection (Knight 1994). Fenc- kota indicated nesting success of only 8% for mallards ing usually is practical only for high-value livestock on such wetlands, half that needed to sustain the pop- and poultry. When practical, night fencing under ulation (Cowardin, Gilmer, and Shaiffer 1985). Adept lights or in sealed buildings is useful. at catching nesting hens as well as destroying eggs, Electric fencing with alternating charged and the red fox evidently is the most important waterfowl grounded wires can exclude coyotes, raccoons, fox, predator (Sargeant, Allen, and Eberhardt 1984). bears, and mountain lions. Wires should be 10 ft (3 m) high, spaced 4 in. (10 cm) apart, and charged with at least 5,000 volts (Knight 1994). Damage Identification Because most predators prefer to hunt and thus Because predation is observed rarely, accurate as- stay where escape cover is close at hand, the utility sessment of losses to specific predators often requires of cultural practices is limited. Although often im- careful investigative work. The first action in deter- practical, removal of brush and trees within one-quar- mining the cause of animal death is to check for signs ter mile (0.4 km) of building and livestock concentra- on the animal and around the kill site. Size and locations may result in decreased predation (Knight tion of tooth marks often will indicate predatory spe- 1994). cies. Extensive bleeding usually is characteristic of Chronic predation has led to certain ranchers’ shift- predation. Where external bleeding is not apparent, ing from sheep to cattle production. And in certain the hide can be removed from the carcass—particu- areas with high levels of predation, ranchers have larly around the neck, throat, and head—and the area changed from cow/calf to steer operations. can be checked for tooth holes, subcutaneous hemor- Frightening devices such as bright lights, flashing rhage, and tissue damage (Dolbeer, Holler, and Haw- white lights, blaring music, barking dogs, and changes thorn 1994). Hemorrhage occurs only if skin and tis- in the placement of scarecrow objects in livestock dep- sue damage occurs while the animal is alive. Animals redation areas may repel predators temporarily that die from causes other than predation do not nor- (Knight 1994), as may a strobe light/siren device. mally show external or subcutaneous bleeding al- Guard dogs, llamas, and donkeys have been success- though bloody fluids may be lost from body openings ful means of protecting sheep from coyotes (Green, (Bowns 1976). Animal losses are easiest to evaluate Henderson, and Collinge 1994). if examination is conducted when the carcass is fresh No chemical repellents have shown sufficient effec- (Wade and Bowns 1982). tiveness to be registered for use. Moreover, no chem- Animals are not always killed by a throat attack; ical toxicants are registered for mountain lion or bear some are pulled down from the side or rear. In these control. M–44 ejector devices for use with sodium Wildlife-Damage Control 177 cyanide-loaded plastic capsules are registered for coy- lish regular scent posts along their paths. Leghold ote control and for fox control in certain states, as are traps can be used along these routes as effective and livestock protection collars containing compound 1080 versatile coyote control tools (Green, Henderson, and (Green, Henderson, and Collinge 1994). Collinge 1994) (Figure 9.5). Mountain lions and coyotes are extremely strong Other predators require specifically designed trap- and require very well-made traps (Knight 1994). ping techniques. Culvert and barrel traps are effec- These lions are trapped easily, however, along habit- tive tools for trapping bears, for instance. The Ald- ual travel ways, in depredation areas, and at kill sites. rich-type foot snare can be used to catch bear and Although blind sets usually are made in narrow paths mountain lions (Hygnstrom 1994). The set is made frequented by lions, baits made of fish products, poul- on trails frequented by lions or at baits used by bears. try, porcupine, rabbits, or deer parts, as well as curi- Stones or sticks are used to direct foot placement over osity lures such as catnip, rhodium oil, and house cat the triggering device. Snares suspended in runways urine and gland materials are effective attractants. and trails or set with baits in cubby arrangement can Mountain lions are very curious and respond to hang- be set to kill mountain lions or coyotes. ing and moving flags of skin, feathers, or bright objects. If coyotes, bears, or mountain lions return to a fresh There are many effective methods for trapping coy- kill to feed, they can be shot. They also can be called otes. Like mountain lions, coyotes follow regular into shooting range with predator calls, particularly paths and crossings. They also prefer high hills or sounds that simulate the distress cry of deer or rab- knolls from which they can view terrain. They estab- bits (Green, Henderson, and Collinge 1994). Trained dogs can be used to pursue predators. Hunting of predators as big-game animals should be encouraged in areas of predation when possible. Aerial gunning from fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters sometimes is used to kill coyotes (Green, Henderson, and Collinge 1994).

Acknowledgments Much of the information in this chapter was taken from Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, by Hygnstrom, Timm, and Larson, published by the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension in 1994. A Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms a. acre cm centimeter ft foot ha hectare in. inch yr year Appendix B. Glossary Area repellents. Chemicals that repel deer and elk B by odor alone. Contact repellents. Chemicals that repel deer and Figure 9.5. A. Setting a coyote leghold trap. B. Camouflaging a leghold trap. Photos courtesy of J. Knight, Montana elk by contact. State University. Ungulate. Hoofed animal. 178 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Cooperative Ex- Literature Cited tension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Harder, J. D. 1970. Evaluating winter deer use of orchards in Alsager, D. E. 1977. Impact of pocket gophers (Thomomys western Colorado. Trans North Am Wildl Res Conf 35:35–47. talpoides) on the quantitative productivity of rangeland vege- Hill, C. and J. Knight. 1998. Minimizing deer damage to residen- tation in southern Alberta: A damage assessment tool. Pp. 47– tial plantings. MontGuide MT 1998–14. Extension Service, 57. In W. B. Jackson and R. E. Marsh (eds.). Vertebrate Pest Montana State University, Bozeman. Control and Management Materials. American Society for Test- Hygnstrom, S. E. 1994. Black bears. Prevention and Control of ing Materials Standard Testing Procedures, Philadelphia, Penn- Wildlife Damage. University of Nebraska Cooperative Exten- sylvania. sion, Lincoln. Arner, D. H. and J. S. Dubose. 1982. The impact of the beaver on Hygnstrom, S. E. and S. R. Craven. 1988. Electric fences and com- the environment and economics in the southeastern United mercial repellents for reducing deer damage in cornfields. Wildl States. Trans Int Congr Game Biol 14:241–247. Soc Bull 16:291–296. Austin, D. D. and P. J. Urness. 1989. Evaluating production loss- Hygnstrom, S. E., R. Timm, and G. Larson. 1994. Prevention and es from mule deer depredation in apple orchards. Wildl Soc Bull Control of Wildlife Damage. University of Nebraska Coopera- 17:161–165. tive Extension, Lincoln. Black, H. C., E. J. Dimock, II, J. Evans, and J. A. Rochelle. 1979. Knight, J. E. 1994. Mountain lions. Prevention and Control of Animal damage to coniferous plantations in Oregon and Wash- Wildlife Damage. Extension Service, University of Montana, ington. Part I. A survey, 1963–75. Corvallis Research Bulle- Bozeman. tin 25. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University. Lefebvre, L. W., C. R. Ingram, and M. C. Yang. 1978. Assessment Bowns, J. E. 1976. Field criteria for predator damage assessment. of rat damage to Florida sugarcane in 1975. Proc Am Soc Sug- Utah Sci 37:26–30. ar Cane Technol 7:75–80. Brodie, J. D., H. C. Black, E. J. Dimock, II, J. Evans, C. Kao, and Luce, D. G., R. M. Case, and J. L. Stubbendieck. 1981. Damage to J. A. Rochelle. 1979. Animal damage to coniferous plantations alfalfa fields by Plains pocket gophers. J Wildl Manage 45:258– in Oregon and Washington. Part II. An economic evaluation. 260. Corvallis Research Bulletin. Forest Research Laboratory, Or- Marsh, R. E. 1985. Competition of rodents and other small mam- egon State University. mals with livestock in the United States. Pp. 485–508. In S. Bullock, J. F. and D. H. Arner, 1985. Beaver damage to nonim- M. Gaafar, W. E. Howard, and R. E. Marsh (eds.). Parasites, pounded timber in Mississippi. South J Appl For 9:137–140. Pests and Predators. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amster- Connelly, N. A., D. J. Decker, and S. Wear. 1987. Public tolerance dam, The Netherlands. of deer in a suburban environment: Implications for manage- Miller, J. E. 1987. Assessment of wildlife damage on southern ment and control. Proc East Wildl Damage Contr Conf 3:207– forest. Pp. 48–52. In J. Dickson and O. Maughan (eds.). Man- 218. aging Southern Forests for Wildlife and Fish. U.S. Forest Ser- Conover, M. R., W. C. Pitt, K. K. Kesler, T. J. DuBow, and W. A. vice, U.S. Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana. Sanborn. 1995. Review of human injuries, illnesses, and eco- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 1991. Sheep and nomic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildl Soc goat predator loss. National Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Bull 23:407–414. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 23 pp. Cowardin, L. M., D. S. Gilmer, and C. W. Shaiffer. 1985. Mallard National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 1992. Cattle and recruitment in the agricultural environment of North Dakota. calves death loss. National Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Wildl Monogr 92:1–37. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 23 pp. Craven, S. R. 1983. New directions in deer damage management Nielsen, D. G., M. J. Dunlap, and K. V. Miller. 1982. Pre-rut rubin Wisconsin. Proc East Wildl Damage Contr Conf 1:65–67. bing by white-tailed bucks: Nursery damage, social role, and Craven, S. R. and S. E. Hygnstrom. 1994. Deer. Prevention and management options. Wildl Soc Bull 10:341–348. Control of Wildlife Damage. Cooperative Extension, Universi- Pearce J. 1947. Identifying injury by wildlife to trees and shrubs ty of Nebraska, Lincoln. in northeastern forest. Wildlife Research Report 13. U.S. Fish Crouch, G. L. 1976. Deer and reforestation in the Pacific north- Wildlife Service, Bethesda, Maryland. 29 pp. west. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 7:298–301. Pearson, E. W. 1986. A literature review of livestock losses to pred- DeCalesta, D. S. and D. B. Schwendeman. 1978. Characterization ators in western US. Unpublished final report. U.S. Fish and of deer damage to soybean plants. Wildl Soc Bull 6:250–253. Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Colorado. Dolbeer, R. A., N. R. Holler, and D. W. Hawthorn. 1994. Identifi- 20 pp. cation and assessment of wildlife damage: An overview. Pre- Pearson, K. and C. G. Forshey 1978. Effects of pine vole damage vention and Control of Wildlife Damage. University of Nebras- on tree vigor and fruit yield in New York orchards. Hort Sci ka Cooperative Extension, Lincoln. 13:56–57. Eadie, W. R. 1954. Animal Control in Field, Farm and Forest. The Richmond, M. E., C. G. Forshey, L. A. Mahaffy, and P. N. Miller. Macmillan Company, New York. 257 pp. 1987. Effects of differential pine vole populations on growth and Ferguson, W. L. 1980. Rodenticide use in apple orchards. Proc East yield of McIntosh apple trees. Proc East Wildl Damage Con- Pine Meadow Vole Symp 4:2–8. trol Conf 3:296–304. Foster, M. A. and J. Stubbendieck. 1980. Effects of the Plains pock- Sargeant, A. B., S. H. Allen, and R. T. Eberhardt. 1984. Red fox et gopher (Geomys bursarius) on rangeland. J Range Manage predation on breeding ducks in midcontinent North America. 33:74–78. Wildl Monogr 89:1–41. Green, J. S., F. R. Henderson, and M. D. Collinge. 1994. Coyotes. Sauer, W. C. 1977. Exclusion cylinders as a means of assessing Wildlife-Damage Control 179

losses of vegetation due to ground squirrel feeding. Pp. 14–21. Tilghman, N. G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest re- In W. B. Jackson and R. E. Marsh (eds.). Test Methods for Ver- generation in northwestern Pennsylvania. J Wildl Manage tebrate Pest Control and Management Materials. American 53:524–532. Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Turner, G. T. 1969. Responses of mountain grassland vegetation Schmidt, L. and J. Knight. 2000. Electric fencing to control deer to gopher control, reduced grazing, and herbicide. J Range and elk on Montana's farms and ranches. Montguide MT 2000– Manage 22:377–383. 10. Extension Service, Montana State University, Bozeman. Wade, D. A. and J. E. Bowns. 1982. Procedures for evaluating pre- Scott, J. D. and T. W. Townsend. 1985. Characteristics of deer dation on livestock and wildlife. Bulletin B–1429. Texas Agri- damage to commercial tree industries of Ohio. Wildl Soc Bull cultural Extension Service, Texas A&M, College Station. 42 pp. 13:135–143. Seubert, J. L. 1984. Research on nonpredatory mammal damage control by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pp. 553–571. In Related Web Sites A. C. Dubbock (ed.). Organization and Practice of Vertebrate Pest Control. Imperial Chemical Industries PLC., Surrey, Unit- National Wildlife Control Operators Association. 2002. Home- ed Kingdom. page, 18 April, (25 August 2002) Terrill, C. E. 1988. Predator losses climb nationwide. Nat Wool Wildlife Control Technology Magazine. 2002. Homepage, (25 August 2002) 180 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

10 Companion Animal Ectoparasites, Associated Pathogens, and Diseases

Importance of Pets of the body) affect pet health and behavior and human health and comfort. Ectoparasites can affect Pet ownership, as well as the importance of pets animal health by causing blood loss or irritation and/ in the lives of their owners, is increasing in the Unit- or nervousness, or by transmitting pathogens. Their ed States. To many, a pet completes the family unit. activity can lead to secondary infection. Likewise, Among the benefits of ownership are companionship ectoparasites can transfer from pets to their human and enhanced safety for the elderly and those living companions, thereby causing irritation and transmit- alone, opportunities for children to practice respon- ting causative agents of human disease. sibility and other social skills, and assistance for peo- The three most economically significant pet ecto- ple with disabilities. But along with dogs and cats parasites are fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes (Table 10.1). come their ectoparasites and the pathogens they Fleas transmit the tapeworm Dipylidium caninum transmit. Management of these ectoparasites relies and cause anemia and flea-allergy dermatitis. Ticks primarily on insecticides and acaricides supplemented with mechanical, cultural, or biological control. More than half of U.S. households have pets, totaling more than 60 million dogs and nearly 70 million cats (AVMA 2002). As the number of companion animals increases, their ectoparasites gain prominence, and expenditures for control of these pests and the diseases they transmit grow. Humans experience very close contact with companion animals, which they stroke, nuzzle, and often sleep next to. This physical contact also increases potential human exposure to ectoparasites, as well as to the chemicals used to control them. Pests such as fleas and ticks affect not only pet health, but also the human-pet bond; for instance, Figure 10.1. Increasing size of blood-feeding tick. Photo cour- a dog scratching fleas may not be interested in play- tesy of N. Hinkle, University of Georgia. ing. Insofar as pets share the human environment intimately, human exposure to both pests and pest transmit several pathogens, including those causing control products is significant. Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, ehrlichiosis, and babesiosis (Figure 10.1). The main health effect of mosquitoes is transmission of dog heartworm, Pest Significance Dirofilaria immitis. Nationwide, costs of flea treatment, combined with Ectoparasites (insects and their eight-legged rela- those for testing and treatment of ancillary flea prob- tives, e.g., mites and ticks, occurring on the outside lems such as flea-allergy dermatitis and tapeworm,

Table 10.1. Major ectoparasite pests of dogs and cats

Fleas Ctenocephalides felis and canis, P. irritans and simulans, Echidnophaga Lice Chewing lice (Mallophaga) Sucking lice (Anoplura) Ticks Ixodes, Dermacentor, Rhipicephalus, Amblyomma, Otobius Mites Cheyletiella, Sarcoptes, Notoedres, Chorioptes, Liponyssoides, Otodectes, Demodex Mosquitoes Culicidae (in several genera)

180 Companion Animal Ectoparasites, Associated Pathogens, and Diseases 181 amount to $3.8 billion/yr. The annual costs of test- in pruritus (i.e., itching), scratching, and hair loss ing for and treatment of tick-transmitted disease (Dryden and Rust 1994). Flea-allergy dermatitis can agents are estimated at $108 million, but because be so debilitating to pets that owners may feel com- most products registered for tick control are market- pelled to euthanize them. At times, pruritus can be ed mainly for flea suppression, it is difficult to assess alleviated by corticosteroids, but prolonged depen- costs for tick control. Nationally, more than $600 mil- dence on these drugs often precipitates other medi- lion is spent on heartworm testing, prophylaxis, and cal conditions and shortens an animal’s life. treatment. Clearly, pet ectoparasites are significant Certain ticks secrete salivary products causing a in terms of their effects both on companion animals condition called tick paralysis, which can be lethal. and on the economy. Ticks also serve as vectors of several pathogens, including those causing babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and Lyme disease (Hilton et Diseases Associated with al. 1999). Likewise, mosquitoes transmit the tiny nematodes causing heartworm disease in both dogs Companion Animal Ectoparasites and cats (Hermesmeyer et al. 2000). Control strategies are different for arthropods such Ectoparasite-associated diseases fall into two main as mites and lice, in which all stages are associated categories: those caused by the arthropod itself and closely with the host, than for pests such as fleas and those caused by arthropod-vectored pathogens (Table ticks, which undergo off-host developmental stages. 10.2) (Harwood and James 1979). Many of these dis- Quite different means of control may be used against eases are zoonoses (i.e., disease agents capable of be- temporary parasites such as mosquitoes visiting the ing transmitted to and affecting humans). Even par- host only briefly to obtain a blood meal. asites and pathogens such as dog heartworm, which is not considered to have great zoonotic potential, occasionally may produce human disease (Watson, Fleas Wetzel, and Burkhalter 1991). Scabies and mange are caused by mites (Figure Fleas are the most common companion animal ec- 10.2). Ear mites produce otoacariasis, which results toparasite, with the cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis) be- in pain and itching in the ear. Scabies mites burrow ing the most frequently encountered flea on both dogs in the skin, resulting in severe itching, hair loss, and and cats (Figure 10.3). Veterinarians report that 70% secondary infection. Canine and feline lice can serve of dogs and 55% of cats have fleas; 75% of flea-infest- as intermediate hosts of tapeworms, but presence of ed dogs and 40% of flea-infested cats experience FAD lice constitutes a pathological condition in itself (Har- (Lyon 1997). Not surprisingly, flea control is a multi- wood and James 1979). billion-dollar industry. Similarly, certain animals experience severe aller- Fleas may cause not only irritating bites but also, gic reaction to flea salivary secretions, a reaction as a result of salivary secretions, FAD in susceptible termed flea-allergy dermatitis (FAD), which results animals. Fleas serve as the obligate intermediate host

Table 10.2. Companion animal diseases and their vectors

Vector Disease Causative agent

Fleas Tapeworm Dipyllidium caninum Cat scratch disease Bartonella henselae

Lice Tapeworm Dipyllidium caninum

Ticks Lyme disease Borrelia burgdorferi Rocky Mountain Rickettsia rickettsii spotted fever Ehrlichiosis Ehrlichia spp. Babesiosis Babesia spp.

Mosquitoes Dog heartworm Dirofilaria immitis (dirofilariasis) Figure 10.2. Dog with scabies. Photo by Gary Mullen, courtesy of N. Hinkle, University of Georgia. 182 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies of the most common canine and feline tapeworm and To suppress adult and immature stages simulta- also may transmit the causative agent of cat scratch neously, adulticides have traditionally been combined disease (Rust and Dryden 1997). Because fleas are a with larvicides such as insect growth regulators (Dry- nuisance to humans, flea control often is initiated to den and Rust 1994). The advent of persistent on-host alleviate human discomfort. adulticides has decreased but not eliminated the need The most effective biological suppression for cat for environmental flea management (Rust and Dry- fleas is probably generalist predators that eat flea den 1997). eggs and larvae. In nature, these indiscriminate pred- Cat fleas are found on dozens of host species in ad- ators account for substantial flea mortality (Hinkle, dition to dogs and cats, so excluding alternative hosts Rust, and Reierson 1997). The dominant mortality (raccoons, opossums, foxes, skunks, etc.) from the factor for immature fleas is desiccation, whereas host premises is important to decrease reinfestation risk grooming or host absence are the most significant (Hinkle, Rust, and Reierson 1997). Sanitation also mortality factors for adult fleas. Adult fleas have no plays a role in flea suppression. Frequent vacuum- known parasitoids, no identified specific predators, ing and regular washing of pet bedding decrease flea and no significant pathogens. Pesticides therefore egg, larval, and pupal populations, thereby diminish- remain the basis of flea control (Rust and Dryden ing reinfestation potential. 1997). The majority of pet ectoparasiticides are marketed primarily for flea control. These include products Mites formulated as spot-ons, sprays, dusts, and shampoos. Several types of mites, including ear mites and mange mites, infest dogs and cats. Mites that infest pets are not known to transmit disease agents, but the presence of large mite populations is irritating to the animal (Harwood and James 1979). All stages of the mite life cycle occur on the animal, so transmission occurs only from animal to animal. Mites are species-specific, meaning that canine mites are found only on dogs, and feline mites only on cats, etc. (Par- ish and Schwartzman 1993). Certain breeds and individuals are particularly susceptible to mite infestation. Both cats and dogs are susceptible to ear mite infestations, which occur in the ear canal and cause ear canker accompanied by pain, itching, and discharge (Harwood and James 1979). Because ear mites can live on cats’ bodies and will often survive topical treatment, using a systemic product such as an endecto- cide is generally more effective than using ear drops. In multicat households, the ability of mites to move from cat to cat makes infestations especially difficult to control. Mange is caused by an infestation of scabies mites and typically is accompanied by a secondary bacterial infection (Harwood and James 1979). These tiny mites burrow just under the skin surface, thereby stimulating host allergic reactions to their feces and other by-products. Mangy animals typically have large bald patches accompanied by weepy sores produced by bacterial invasion. Figure 10.3. Face of cat flea. Photo courtesy of N. Hinkle, Demodex mites are considered a ubiquitous com- University of Georgia. ponent of normal canine dermal fauna. Demodicosis, Companion Animal Ectoparasites, Associated Pathogens, and Diseases 183 or red mange, is an outbreak resulting in frank dis- ing several blood meals over a period of several days. ease, including crusting and secondary infection, with Movement from one animal to another increases the hair loss occurring primarily in young animals opportunity for transmission of heartworm infectious (Mullen and Durden 2002). Without treatment, de- stages. More than a dozen mosquito species in sever- modicosis is frequently fatal. In older animals, mange al genera are capable of transmitting heartworms typically occurs secondary to underlying immunocom- (Kettle 1990). promisation, either inherent or induced (as by corti- Mosquito suppression often is undertaken on an costeroid use). areawide basis. Mosquitoes can travel great distanc- Demodectic mange occurs in localized and gener- es, so effective suppression must be accomplished on alized forms. Localized mange most often appears in a large scale (Harwood and James 1979). Estimat- dogs younger than one year. The first sign is a thin- ing the cost of heartworm suppression by vector con- ning of hair around eyelids, lips, corners of the mouth, trol is nearly impossible, for much mosquito popula- and front legs. Most animals will self-cure as their tion management is undertaken for human health immune systems mature. and comfort. Generalized demodectic mange can begin as a lo- Effective heartworm prevention is based on pro- calized case or with sudden onset. Numerous patch- phylaxis using filaricides such as diethylcarbamazine es appear on the head, legs, and trunk, then spread or the macrocyclic lactones to maintain blood levels and coalesce. As hair follicles become congested with and to suppress filarial development (Knight and Lok debris and mites, skin sores form, and crusting and 1998). Because adequate mosquito suppression is infection follow. Treatment of dogs experiencing gen- difficult to achieve, vector suppression is an imprac- eralized demodectic mange can be quite prolonged. ticable means of controlling canine heartworm (Har- Response to treatment is slow and often requires fre- wood and James 1979). quent changes in medication. Generalized demodectic mange must be treated under veterinary supervi- sion, and a cure is not always feasible. Older dogs Lice developing demodectic mange, in either form, should be screened for underlying causative factors in im- Lice are obligate ectoparasites, whose stages all oc- mune system dysfunction (Caswell et al. 1997). cur on the host (Harwood and James 1979). Because Sarcoptic mange, caused by Sarcoptes scabiei, re- transmission occurs from infested animals, exclusion sults in irritation, itching, inflammation, and hair loss and treatment of carriers interrupt the transmission around the face. The skin wrinkles and thickens, and cycle. Infestations can be eliminated with any insec- under certain conditions infestations may spread over ticide registered for on-animal use. the entire body. Left untreated, the condition may Felicola subrostrata is the only louse occurring on result in death (Kettle 1990). cats and is found almost exclusively on elderly or sick Cats occasionally are infested with Notoedres cati, animals. Trichodectes canis, the canine chewing a mite attacking the head and ears and leading to louse, is found on dogs, with infestations more com- crusting and baldness. Notoedric mange is highly con- mon on very young, very old, or sick animals (Kettle tagious among cats and can prove fatal within a few 1990). Linognathus setosus, the canine sucking louse, months of onset (Kettle 1990). may be found all over the animal’s body, but numbers Although conventional treatments such as sulfur are heaviest around the neck and shoulders, particu- dips and acaricides (e.g., the amidene products) can larly on long-haired breeds (Kettle 1990). Large num- be effective against mite infestations, new endecto- bers may produce anemia, especially in puppies. cides are more efficacious and dependable and cause No biological controls have been developed against less mammalian toxicity (McKellar and Benchaoui lice in companion animals although a Bacillus thur- 1996). No over-the-counter products are reliably ef- ingiensis strain has been patented that is effective fective against mites, and home remedies often entail against lice. Host grooming and a strong immune health risks to both patients and applicators. system are the most effective suppressants of louse infestations. The majority of products used to treat for lice are Mosquitoes labeled for fleas also, so it is challenging to factor out the portion purchased for louse control. Louse infes- Female mosquitoes are intermittent feeders, tak- tations are relatively rare on dogs and cats, and their 184 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies economic significance probably is minor (amounting Population Monitoring and to less than $10 million annually). Although an individual infestation may be costly, few cases are encoun- Damage Assessment tered by veterinarians.

Action thresholds depend on the pet owner’s tolerance for ectoparasites and their effects on animal be- Stable Flies havior, appearance, and health. Few nonsubjective Stable flies produce scabbing and irritation around measurement criteria exist for companion animal the periphery of the canine pinna. Protecting animals pests, unlike for agricultural pests, and there are no from stable flies involves keeping the flies away from established economic injury levels for companion an- dogs, and thus dogs need a protected area to which imal ectoparasites. In general, pet ectoparasites are they can retreat and avoid flies. Stable fly feeding is not tolerated and action thresholds are low because decreased by the use of repellents such as diethyl tolu- human and animal health risks are perceived as high. amide (DEET) and permethrin (Thomas and Skoda Many pet owners consider the presence of any “ver- 1992). min” objectionable, and for such owners the action Stable fly breeding site elimination is the most ef- threshold may be a single ectoparasite (Hinkle, Rust, fective means of eliminating stable fly problems. But and Reierson 1997). because these flies have long flight ranges, suppression must be accomplished on an areawide basis (Thomas and Skoda 1992). Suppression of Companion Animal Ectoparasites Ticks Pest management on pets is limited by owner acceptance, as well as by biological and operational con- Ticks carry a number of pathogens, some with straints. Few specific parasites or predators have zoonotic potential. Although both pets and humans been identified for ectoparasites. Moreover, the lev- can become infected with Lyme disease, ehrlichiosis, el of control demanded by pet owners requires highly and Rocky Mountain spotted fever, these diseases are efficacious and dependable tactics, further limiting transmitted only by ticks; humans cannot become the range of viable strategies (Rust and Dryden 1997). infected from pets (Daniels et al. 1998). Most pet owners have neither the time nor the incli- Ticks may be removed by hand picking, using a nation to implement and to monitor mechanical or tick-pulling device or forceps (tweezers), which allows biological control strategies, a fact limiting options the owner to avoid contact with potentially pathogenic further. secretions. Contrary to popular belief, leaving a portion of the tick’s mouthparts (“head”) in the wound is not dangerous to the host (Faust, Russell, and Jung Current Status of Integrated Pest 1970). Management Implementation Three effective acaricides are available for tick control: fipronil, permethrin, and amitraz (Dryden 2001). Few effective alternatives exist to chemical control Fipronil and permethrin are formulated as topical of ectoparasites or to pharmaceutical prophylaxis of spot-on products, and amitraz is available as a collar. the disease organisms they transmit. A number of Fipronil and permethrin are active against fleas, as compounds highly toxic to humans and to pets have well; amitraz, less so. Amitraz is toxic if ingested, so been used to suppress ectoparasites, including such use of such collars is contraindicated in multiple-pet on-animal materials as nicotine, chlorinated hydro- households or where the potential exists for other carbons, organophosphates, carbamates, and pyre- animals to be exposed. Permethrin is toxic to cats and throids (Hinkle 1997). With the advent of products so cannot be used on them, nor should it be used on displaying lower mammalian toxicities, such as insect dogs in close contact with cats. Products providing growth regulators, chloronicotinyls (e.g., imidaclo- sustained activity without repeated applications are prid), and phenylpyrazoles (e.g., fipronil), on-animal especially convenient, thereby increasing the likeli- pest suppression can be achieved with decreased risks hood of use and of pet protection (Dryden 2001). to humans and pets (Rust and Dryden 1997). Companion Animal Ectoparasites, Associated Pathogens, and Diseases 185

Control of Companion Animal ectoparasite refractoriness is not a prime objective in the breeding of cats or dogs. Characteristics such as Pests susceptibility to fleas and ticks are not considered commonly in breed conformation, but the develop- Biological Control ment of resistance may be possible by means of molecular genetic manipulations. Biological control options are limited for most pet In addition to the use of classical breed-selection ectoparasites. Generalist predators can affect off-host techniques and genetic manipulation, artificial stim- stages of pests such as fleas and ticks. But no para- ulation of the animal’s immune system can be accom- sites or selective pathogens have been identified for plished to induce host animal resistance (Rust and pests such as mites and lice, whose life stages all oc- Dryden 1997). These strategies of vaccinating against cur on-host and so have limited exposure to parasites ectoparasites are being studied by research laborato- and predators (Hinkle, Rust, and Reierson 1997). ries but are not yet available commercially. Most ectoparasitic groups have no known parasitoids or host-specific predators. Although bacterial, viral, and fungal diseases may work against on-host ecto- Chemical Control parasites, no such disease has been identified, and Insecticides from virtually every chemical class, in- additional concerns arise regarding unanticipated cluding botanicals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, organ- effects on humans and pets. ophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, borates, and One biocontrol agent developed for flea suppression insect growth regulators, have been used against pet is the parasitic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae, ectoparasites (Hinkle 1997). which was labeled for outdoor use against immature Customers appreciate the convenience of products flea stages (Rust and Dryden 1997). Application re- such as the injectable lufenuron formulation that pro- quirements such as timing, site preparation, and con- vides seasonlong flea suppression, spot-on products ditions facilitating survival made these parasitic claiming up to three months of effectiveness, and col- worms poor candidates for homeowner use. Biologi- lars releasing acaricides for several months (Rust and cal control organisms do not have the shelf life of Dryden 1997). Pet owners are interested not only in chemical insecticides, must be used in a rather nar- ease of use but also in products characterized by low rowly proscribed manner, and require a relatively mammalian toxicity and decreased risk to people, extensive knowledge base for effective use (Hinkle, pets, and the environment. Rust, and Reierson 1997). Biocontrol options for ectoparasites are restricted further because pet owners usually are intolerant of Natural Products any arthropods, even beneficial ones, being associat- Most “herbal” and “natural” products tested ed with their pets. Additionally, of the few parasites, against ectoparasites have not been demonstrated to predators, and pathogens identified, most produce suppress pests effectively. When used according to only minimal pest mortality and thus fail to achieve specific procedures, alternatives such as limonene and the level of suppression required by pet owners. Be- linalool are capable of killing certain pests such as cause pet ectoparasites have such extremely low ac- fleas in limited situations (Rust and Dryden 1997). tion thresholds and because pet owners will not tol- Many natural products touted for ectoparasitic con- erate the minimal pest population necessary to trol are quite toxic in themselves, and plant-derived sustain beneficial parasitoids and predators, biologi- compounds have no intrinsic advantage over synthetic cal control options rarely are used. Furthermore, bi- formulations (Hinkle 1995). ological control almost never produces pest elimina- Newer biogenic endectocides, such as the macro- tion, which is the goal of pet ectoparasite suppression. cyclic lactones, demonstrate greater efficacy, broader activity spectrum, and lower mammalian toxicity than their predecessors did (McKellar and Benchaoui Host Animal Resistance 1996). Their efficacy against both bloodsucking ar- Like plants, pets differ in terms of their suscepti- thropods and internal parasites makes these micro- bilities to various pests; unlike plants, pets have not bially produced compounds valuable for combating a been selected for pest resistance. Put another way, wide range of animal health problems. 186 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Mechanical Control higher population before initiating therapy (Hinkle, Rust, and Reierson 1997). Response also depends on Mechanical ectoparasite suppression is a useful ad- human discomfort. An owner who sees tapeworm seg- junct to other control techniques. In particular, pre- ments exiting his or her pet’s anus is more likely to venting pet exposure to infested animals or con- schedule a vet visit than the owner of an animal with taminated environments is essential to avoiding re- heartworm is, even though the latter condition is life infestation. Abiotic environmental factors such as threatening and the former is not. temperature and humidity significantly affect off-host pest stages, so environmental extremes can be used to make conditions inhospitable for development (Hin- Future Developments kle, Rust, and Reierson 1997). Other types of mechanical control include sanita- The future of integrated pest management for ec- tion and various forms of environmental manipula- toparasites will include the use of innate animal phys- tion. Mechanical pest suppression techniques typi- iology to suppress ectoparasites and to minimize their cally require a great deal of care by the pet owner. For deleterious effects on pet and owner health. Insecti- instance, flea combing or hand picking of ticks re- cides and acaricides will continue to play necessary quires a tractable animal and a highly motivated roles. Regardless of the tactic used against compan- owner (Figure 10.4). Devices such as light traps are ion animal pests, consumers expect both maximum

Figure 10.4. Flea comb. Photo courtesy of N. Hinkle, University Figure 10.5. Pet owner compliance depends to a great extent on of Georgia. ease of control implementation. Photo courtesy of N. Hinkle, University of Georgia. useful in the interception of adult fleas before they efficacy in prevention and suppression and minimal find their way onto a host, as well as in flea popula- impact on themselves and their pets. This is a high- tion monitoring. Pet owner compliance depends to a value market segment, for pet owners view ectopara- great extent on ease of implementation of mechani- site control as an investment in their animals’ health cal controls (Figure 10.5). and comfort as well as in the health and comfort of human members of their households. As consumers become increasingly concerned about the health ef- Monitoring and Action Thresholds fects of ectoparasites, both on themselves and on their Instead of determining arthropod numbers, most pets, willingness to invest in ectoparasite suppression pet owners assess the health status of their pets and will increase. use discomfort or illness as triggers for interventions. Whereas monitoring is possible using such imple- ments as traps or flea combs, animal irritation and Appendix A. Abbreviations and human discomfort are more commonly used means of monitoring. Acronyms Action thresholds depend on the region; where DEET diethyl toluamide pests are common, pet owners generally tolerate a FAD flea-allergy dermatitis Companion Animal Ectoparasites, Associated Pathogens, and Diseases 187

Clinical Parasitology. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Appendix B. Glossary Harwood, R. F. and M. T. James. 1979. Entomology in Human Ectoparasites. Insects and their eight-legged rela- and Animal Health. 7th ed. Macmillan Publishing, New York. Hermesmeyer, M., R. K. Limberg-Child, A. J. Murphy, and L. S. tives, e.g., mites and ticks, occurring on the out- Mansfield. 2000. Prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis infection side of the body. among shelter cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:211–212. Flea-allergy dermatitis. Severe allergic reaction to Hilton, E., J. DeVoti, J. L. Benach, M. L. Halluska, D. J. White, H. flea salivary secretions. Paxton, and J. S. Dumler. 1999. Seroprevalence and serocon- Mange. An infestation of mites accompanied by skin version for tick-borne diseases in a high-risk population in the northeast United States. Am J Med 106:404–409. inflammation and hair loss. Hinkle, N. C. 1995. Natural born killers. Pest Control Technol Pruritus. Itching. 23:54, 56, 116. Tick paralysis. A potentially lethal condition caused Hinkle, N. C. 1997. The history of flea control. Pest Control Tech- by the salivary products secreted by ticks. nol 25:34, 36, 82. Zoonoses. Disease agents capable of being transmit- Hinkle, N. C., M. K. Rust, and D. A. Reierson. 1997. Biorational approaches to flea (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) suppression: ted to and affecting humans. Present and future. J Agric Entomol 14:309–321. Kettle, D. S. 1990. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. CAB International, Oxon, United Kingdom. Literature Cited Knight, D. H. and J. B. Lok. 1998. Seasonality of heartworm infection and implication for chemoprophylaxis. Clin Tech Small American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2002. U.S. Pet Anim Pract 13:77–82. Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook, 2002. American Veterinary Medical Association, Statistical Research Group, Lyon, W. F. 1997. Pet pest management. Bulletin 586. The Ohio State University, Columbus. Schaumburg, Illinois. McKellar, Q. A. and H. A. Benchaoui. 1996. Avermectins and Caswell, J. L., J. A. Yager, W. M. Parker, and P. F. Moore. 1997. A prospective study of the immunophenotype and temporal milbemycins. J Vet Pharmacol 19:331–351. Mullen, G. R. and L. Durden. 2002. Medical and Veterinary Ento- changes in the histologic lesions of canine demodicosis. Vet mology. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Pathol 34:279–287. Daniels, T. J., T. M. Boccia, S. Varde, J. Marcus, J. Le, D. J. Buch- Parish, L. C. and R. M. Schwartzman. 1993. Zoonoses of derma- tological interest. Semin Dermatol 12:57–64. er, R. C. Falco, and I. Schwartz. 1998. Geographic risk for Lyme Rust, M. K. and M. W. Dryden. 1997. The biology, ecology, and disease and human granulocytic ehrlichiosis in southern New management of the cat flea. Annu Rev Entomol 42:451–473. York state. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:4663–4669. Dryden, M. W. 2001. Internal and external parasites of the rac- Thomas, G. D. and S. R. Skoda. 1992. The stable fly: A pest of ing Greyhound. In Proceedings, 17th Annual International humans and domestic animals. Institute of Agriculture and Canine Sports Medicine Symposium, January 2001, Orlando, Natural Resources, Agricultural Research Division, Universi- Florida. Pp 16–23. ty of Nebraska–Lincoln. Dryden, M. W. and M. K. Rust. 1994. The cat flea: Biology, ecol- Watson, J., W. J. Wetzel, and J. Burkhalter. 1991. Human dis- ogy and control. Vet Parasitol 52:1–19. ease caused by dog heartworm. J Miss State Med Assoc 32:399– Faust, E. C., P. F. Russell, and R. C. Jung. 1970. Craig and Faust’s 401. 188 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

11 Urban Integrated Pest Management

Integrated pest management (IPM) has its roots in an insect, a weed, or a rodent, an organism that dam- contemporary agriculture, in which questions of eco- ages homes, structures, clothing, food, or landscape nomics—cost of treatments versus the value of bene- plantings or harms, annoys, or otherwise interferes fits—are a driving force. Recently, IPM techniques with people and their activities is considered an and philosophies with slightly different emphases urban pest. have been applied to urban pest management, which In urban IPM, social concerns replace economic concerns the direct interactions between people and gains or losses as the driving force behind decision pests, whether in the innermost parts of a city, in a making. Among these concerns are public attitudes, suburban area, or in a comparatively rural location. perceptions, and prejudices regarding pests and pes- Like agricultural IPM, urban IPM applies pest man- ticides and their effects on human activity and the agement decisions on the basis of determined need, environment. Within the last few years, environmen- instead of on the basis of preventive, or prophylactic, tal and human health issues clearly have become philosophy. Calling for a multidisciplinary approach, prime considerations of regulatory agency personnel. urban IPM uses various nonchemical and chemical A massive push to decrease human exposure to toxi- techniques in an overall management strategy. cants of all kinds is under way. Concurrently, a sub- Unlike agricultural IPM decisions, however, urban stantial increase in litigation relating directly to pest IPM decisions cannot be made on an entirely economic management and pesticide application is occurring. basis (Gibb 1999), for often in urban environments no Rights to be informed of pesticide use, residues, and commodity is produced, harvested, or sold. Urban toxicity levels; rights to pollution-free public environ- IPM balances the cost of treatments with a human ments in which to work, visit, or study; and rights to comfort value. Compared with economic gains in ag- be free from harmful parasites, disease, and nuisance ricultural IPM, urban IPM quantifies human comfort pests are being legislated. Attaining acceptable lev- value less readily and becomes more subjective when els of pest management without exposing people and human tolerance of pests and quality of life are con- the environment to excessive risks from pesticides is sidered. Thus, a management decision based solely the major objective of urban IPM. on the economic return of pest control inputs is unre- The definition of urban IPM has evolved over the alistic in an urban environment. Rather, urban IPM years as various environmental and social pressures is based on the premise that, even in the absence of have been brought to bear. Olkowski, Daar, and monetary value, damage can occur and pest manage- Olkowski (1991), Owens (1986), and others have had ment can be justified. insights into IPM concepts. Their insights and dis- Urban IPM includes a human factor rather than cussions have been considered in the development of an economic factor in the pest management equation. the following definition: For example, qualitative aspects such as aesthetics, comfort, health, and peace of mind substitute in many Urban integrated pest management is a process ways for the quantitative economics involved in agri- that employs physical, mechanical, cultural, cultural IPM decision making. Because many of the chemical, biological, regulatory, and education- qualifying aspects for urban IPM are subjective, they al techniques to prevent pests from establishing cannot be measured economically. This subjectivity populations capable of causing unacceptable eco- represents a major challenge in urban IPM and can nomic, social, medical, or aesthetic damage. cause it to become very complex and subject to indi- Urban IPM utilizes regular inspections to deter- vidual interpretation. But the unifying and distin- mine if and when a treatment is needed. Treat- guishing characteristic of all urban IPM approaches ments are chosen based on proven records of is the human factor. Whether a pest is a pathogen, success and become part of the overall IPM strat-

188 Urban Integrated Pest Management 189

egy. Chemicals, when required, are target-spe- Monitoring cific, low-impact and are made only when and where monitoring has indicated that the pest The primary objective of monitoring is to obtain an will cause intolerable damage or annoyance. estimate of the pest population size and distribution. The IPM program must, as a result, be environ- Monitoring begins during the initial inspection and mentally, socially, and economically compatible should become an ongoing component of the IPM pro- to meet public expectations. (Gibb 1999) gram. Data obtained from monitoring, coupled with Five main components of urban IPM, whether in- knowledge of pest tolerance levels, allow the manag- side buildings or out-of-doors, should be considered er to assess a problem as severe, moderate, or minor. essential. These include the need for (1) inspection, This process also confirms whether pest damage is (2) monitoring, (3) situation-specific decision making, evident, increasing, or decreasing. It is not uncom- (4) pest management technique application, and (5) mon to find pest treatments applied inappropriately evaluation and record keeping. in situations because pests have become inactive or have reached a life stage during which treatments no longer are effective. Inspection Information obtained from monitoring plays an important role in determining the type, intensity, and In its strictest sense, IPM is simply a decision mak- duration of management techniques required. Only ing process that begins with a thorough inspection to through monitoring can a decision be made regard- identify the pest and the habitat in which it exists and ing whether an action is justified. Monitoring pro- the nature of its interactions with humans. Identifi- vides demonstrative proof that pesticides or other cation of the pest and its demographics is key to de- management tactics need to be applied. Often such termining the seriousness of the problem and the justification is necessary to reassure the public. Mon- management steps that must be taken. itoring helps a pest manager determine a time both Identification is a step sometimes taken for grant- to begin a pest control action and to end it. ed. Nevertheless, accurate identification of the pest Perhaps monitoring’s most important advantage is must always be confirmed. Although this process is that it can be used as an evaluation tool to assess the one of the most basic elements of pest management, effectiveness of any pest control strategy over time. mistakes in identification still are made commonly Monitoring should be considered one of the basic te- when many urban pests are being studied, especially nets of effectively designed urban IPM. pests that are similar in appearance or behavior. Accurately identifying the pest, recognizing which life stages are present, and understanding the life histo- Establishing Pest Tolerance Levels ry of the pest and how it interacts with people help a It is unrealistic to expect to eradicate all pests ei- pest manager exploit the weak links in pest biology. ther outside or inside buildings. Notwithstanding the An equally important component of an inspection broad-spectrum, long-residual pesticides used in the is that of assessing potential human/pest interactions. 1960s and 1970s, it has become evident that eradi- How the building or landscape is constructed and cation of pests is impossible, even if society were will- used, how it is accessed and maintained, how its use ing to accept the negative environmental consequenc- and construction affect the local and general environ- es of the use of these products and regimens. Rather, ments, and whether any additional regulatory influ- in most situations, low pest-populations, monitored ences are at work all are important pieces of informa- and managed carefully over time so that they do not tion that can be provided by an inspection. Assessing increase beyond a certain tolerance threshold, are the building and landscape habitat allows for an eval- acceptable. When compared with the potential neg- uation as to relative pest-conducive situations and, ative human and environmental health effects of to- therefore, allows prophylactic or preventative solu- tal reliance on chemical pesticides, a low, well-man- tions to be implemented. Also implicit in the pest aged pest population is, in fact, preferable. equation is a specific evaluation of the human factors Education is key to helping establish realistic tol- involved—personal and company biases, fears, con- erance levels. Educating clientele about whether, cerns, and pest tolerance levels. Together, these in- when, how, and where pests harm humans is the first teractions inform decisions regarding appropriate step. Urban-pest managers must recognize that tol- pest management techniques for each situation. erance levels are situation specific. Very sensitive 190 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies situations may dictate that the presence of even a sin- Tolerance Levels in Urban Buildings and gle pest such as a brown recluse spider exceeds the Structures highest tolerance level; in other situations, even great numbers of pests such as ants may not be a serious Perhaps even more subjective than the process of threat, and thus a “no action” policy may be the cor- determining treatment thresholds in landscapes is rect response. Tolerance levels also depend on spe- that of determining pest tolerance levels in urban cific sites, clientele groups, locations, and, even, time. buildings. As in landscape IPM, tolerance levels are For example, pest tolerance levels may be lower in determined according to the pest’s potential to cause hospitals, daycare centers, or nursing homes because harm or annoyance and by the residents’ personal the sick, the young, or the elderly are more sensitive tolerance levels, factors both influenced by the site/ to the pest. Established pest tolerance levels may environment. The issue may be confounded further decrease when large gatherings are expected either when personal health or safety issues are at stake. in a building or in an outdoor setting, only to rise For example, the number of ants that personnel in an again after the event ends. office building might tolerate before implementing a The decision regarding whether to use pest man- costly management practice is greater than that of agement tactics pivots on tolerance level. Because brown recluse spiders, simply because of the poten- such decisions in urban IPM are based on more than tial negative consequences associated with each pest. economics, they can be difficult to make. Even if all buildings and locations were identical, tolerance levels would differ because each person has a unique zone of comfort. For instance, even if an individual became convinced that he or she would not be Tolerance Levels in Urban Landscapes bitten, stung, or contaminated in any way by a spe- In plantings such as ornamentals and turfgrass- cific pest, comfort levels might remain low insofar as es, whose values cannot be translated easily into dol- the individual was uncomfortable “just knowing” that lars, the IPM issue becomes complicated. Assess- a pest was present in home or office. ment comes to hinge on the relative worth of the plant in its surroundings or on its aesthetic worth. In landscape pest management, even the relative value of a Situation-Specific Decision planting can depend on such factors as its location in the landscape. For example, in a residential set- Making ting, limited pest damage might be tolerated in a By definition, IPM in urban environments (build- backyard, where relatively few people might see it; ings or surrounding landscapes) must be site specif- the same amount of damage in the front yard would ic. Because of the multiplicity of possible site-specif- tend to be unacceptable, however. In golf courses, ic variations, a list of universally acceptable limited pest damage and invasion are tolerable in the thresholds for pest tolerance cannot be established. rough areas because playability of the course is un- Significant differences occur depending, for instance, affected. Much lower levels of the same damage are on whether the landscape is a home lawn or an ath- acceptable, however, in intensively maintained fair- letic field. Parks, cemeteries, and rights-of-way all ways. Even less pest damage is tolerated on the tees have significantly different uses. Even within a land- and greens, and especially on those closest to the club- scape, pest tolerances depend on several factors house, where they are played and seen by more peo- known only to those managing the grounds. Factors ple more often. such as upcoming events, expected traffic use differ- A decision to manage a pest population depends ences, site-specific weather conditions, and irrigation on two major interacting factors: the size of the pest stresses, soil types, and seasonal changes all play roles population and the associated tolerance level. To- in IPM decision making. gether, pest population level, species, and host sus- On landscape plantings, factors such as pest life ceptibility determine potential damage to landscapes. stage and plant variety and development, health, and Damage usually occurs as a result of the pest’s feed- susceptibility to the pest must be known. Environ- ing on or otherwise injuring a plant. Tolerance lev- mental factors such as irrigation, soil compaction, els must, therefore, also include assessments of po- plant susceptibility to the pest, as well as the inter- tential damage. action of myriad other possible stresses potentially affecting the plant also must be accounted for in a Urban Integrated Pest Management 191 formula predicting when a pest population should be scientious consideration of each of the afore- controlled. In certain instances, specific numbers mentioned factors, are at the heart of site-specific have been generated to give a general idea of pest determinations. thresholds and acceptable damage tolerances (Schu- mann et al. 1997). It must be remembered, however, that these are general guidelines only and should be Human-Health Concerns adapted to the specific circumstances of the site and Urban pests may damage plantings, structures, to the pest in question. and furnishings; cause annoyance; or create serious Likewise, certain urban structural environments human-health concerns. Wasps can sting, fleas can such as hospitals or food production plants are espe- bite, and flies can spread germs and other disease cially sensitive to pests. Health and food contamina- agents. In addition to harming people directly tion concerns drive pest tolerances in these structures through biting or stinging, pests also can cause seri- to levels lower than those in parking garages or in ous health threats simply by being present. For ex- nonfood warehouses. Even within a single residen- ample, fecal material, dander, the discarded skins of tial or public structure, localized areas such as kitch- insects during growth, as well as the expired bodies ens and bedrooms are more sensitive than basements, of past generations, break down over time. During attics, and patios, and a unique pest threshold exists decomposition and over time, fine particles can be- for each environment. come airborne and, when inhaled by a person already As a result of these variables, no published table predisposed to asthma, can cause severe complica- of pest tolerance levels could apply universally: pest tions. Cockroaches, dust mites, and, recently, house tolerances must be established on a case-by-case, sit- mice and lady beetles all have been implicated directly uation-by-situation basis. Before attempts to estab- in human allergies and asthma (Rosenstreich and lish a tolerance level are made, it is crucial to thor- Eggleston 1997; Sporik et al. 1990). oughly understand the pest, its habitat, and the It also should be recognized that many individu- people it affects. Prior understanding of these issues als are intolerant of pesticide residues in the environ- helps a manager avoid the pitfall of basing treatments ment. Some people may oppose pesticides on the ba- on impulses. sis of fear or prejudice whereas others are sickened Potential advantages gained by applying pest man- physically by pesticides, even at low concentrations. agement tactics must be weighed against application A condition called environmental sickness, or multi- costs. This comparison is always at the heart of ur- ple chemical sensitivity, is linked to exposures to ban IPM. Although direct treatment-costs such as chemicals in the environment (Ziem 1992). A theory personnel time and resources, golf course down time, called toxicant-induced loss of tolerance might explain or inconvenient use restrictions of an area in a build- why overexposure to a single environmental pollut- ing while pesticides are being applied are measured ant (not always a pesticide) leads to heightened sen- with relative ease, the less-direct costs, such as sitivity to several other unrelated substances, includ- strained public relations and the potentials for nega- ing pesticides, in the environment (Miller 1997). tive environmental side effects and for associated law- Concerns have arisen and debate has ensued about suits, often are more important. the issue of children’s exposure to pesticides (NRC Urban pests must be managed so that people can 1993) and whether there is a correlation between ex- function and live in the way they have become accus- posure and acute or chronic health disorders. Al- tomed to. Urban IPM encourages pest management though this issue still is being debated, neither side tactical choices based on a comparison of the advan- questions that human health can be affected negative- tages gained with the possible costs and disadvantag- ly when pesticides are misused. What should be rec- es accompanying a decision to treat. Site-specific ognized by all is that pesticides used properly are part judgments must be made in each instance and must of a safe and effective IPM program. In decisions re- take into account potential perils to humans and pets garding whether to use pest management tactics, (e.g., direct exposure to chemicals). Preventing envi- trade-offs (advantages due to decreases in pest popu- ronmental contamination by considering the fate of lations, and potential disadvantages due to manage- the pesticide through time and space, as it is affected ment applications) must be considered. by factors such as proximity of surface- or groundwa- Over the years, society has come to depend on ter, type of soil, and density of plants also is required. chemical pesticides as the primary tool with which to Experience and sound judgment, together with a con- maintain pest-free landscapes and buildings. Strict 192 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies reliance on and overuse of chemicals have, at times, of possible applications of a number of different con- created a pesticide treadmill, by which more and more trol tactics in a pest management framework. In pest chemicals have been required to achieve consistent management, pest thresholds are established and results. Because of the constant and intimate human used as decision making guides to clarify whether presence in urban environments, perceived health action against a certain pest is desirable. In addition, risks due to pesticide applications in these areas have pest management, instead of stressing reliance on a increased. The potentials for direct human exposure pesticide, stresses integration of at least two ap- to pesticides as well as for indirect exposure through proaches to managing complex or severe pest environmental pollution have become important and problems. volatile social issues. The dilemma faced by urban In any IPM program, accurate determination of the IPM is that such concerns have not lessened public need for intervention depends on many situation-spe- expectations for pest-free buildings or for high-quali- cific and use-specific factors. Therefore, IPM in ur- ty, damage-free plantings (Sadof and Raup 1997). ban environments has come to focus on (1) prevent- Even without the aid of many of the chemical man- ing buildings and landscapes from being invaded by agement tools of the past, pest managers still are ex- pests and (2) offering an array of potential manage- pected to provide pest eradication in homes and build- ment techniques when infestations do occur. ings as well as pest- and damage-free plantings in the In IPM, the word integrated implies a multidisci- landscape. Fortunately, new pest management tech- plinary approach whereby several management op- nologies are helping make this possible in the urban tions can be brought to bear on a single problem. Such environment. an approach is considered the most environmentally Unrealistic expectations regarding pest-free envi- healthy and viable long-term strategy available. ronments often confound IPM efforts. Realistic IPM Choosing from a variety of possible management expectations recognize that a degree of pest presence strategies ensures that the best management/site fit may be acceptable, provided the long-term health of is achieved. The better the fit, the less the chance of individuals or plants is unaffected. Urban IPM re- undesirable consequences. quires extensive public education. Changes in pub- Once it has been determined that a management lic perceptions and tolerances of pest presence and practice should be implemented, a decision should be damage must be effected before the full range of IPM made regarding appropriate tactics. Arriving at such benefits can be achieved. a decision seldom is a straightforward process. It is Integrated pest management in the urban environ- made simpler, however, when the pest manager has ment remains, in many ways, similar to that in the a thorough understanding of the environment, the agricultural environment. Protecting human inter- biology, the life cycle, and the ecology of the infesting ests from damage—and not necessarily killing pests— pest and of the available management options. Of- is the basis of urban landscape IPM. Management ten the best method for choosing a tactic is to com- strategies can be chosen from among chemical, cul- pare all evident advantages with all possible limita- tural, mechanical, biological, and/or regulatory options. Factors such as efficacy, application ease, tions. Decisions should be made on a site- and situa- environmental impact, and a host of other on-the-job tion-specific basis and be consistent with an overall experiences will be of value to decision makers. pest management plan. Pest Prevention by Exclusion Application of Pest Management Preventing pest entry or spread is a fundamental IPM objective. On a national and a statewide basis, Techniques regulatory agencies help prevent the spread of pests The terms pest control and pest management often by enforcing requirements on shipping food commod- are interpreted as synonymous. There is a fundamen- ities, sod, and other landscape materials from one lo- tal, though subtle, difference between them, howev- cation to the next. A great number of diseases and er. Pest control traditionally has involved a one-di- insect pests are held in check by such regulations. mensional emphasis on pesticidal remedies for pest Understanding how pests move and are introduced problems. Pest management is not a reaction but a into a new location allows circumvention of pest dis- deliberate process of treating a pest with a manage- tribution. Routinely inspecting, cleaning, and disin- ment tool such as a pesticide. Pest management re- fecting equipment, transportation vehicles, and oth- quires an understanding of pest population levels and er materials in which pests might be introduced from Urban Integrated Pest Management 193 one site into another is also an important practice landscapes, buildings, and water sources all will in- requiring knowledge of pest presence and biology. fluence future pest potentials. Additionally, efforts to eradicate a small pest-pop- Seeding properly prepared beds with the best ulation before it becomes established are desirable. match of plant variety and ensuring that optimal ir- Governmental agencies actively monitor for the inva- rigation and fertilization practices can continue also sion of suspected pests and stand ready to perform are important preplant decisions that a pest manag- localized, intensive eradication procedures in an ef- er should help make. These factors should be consid- fort to stave off permanent establishment of new ered carefully and, when necessary, modified to facil- pests. On a local basis, urban-pest managers using itate decreased pest problems. similar tactics can help prevent movement and establishment of pests from an infected area into a new site. Building Design The first step is routine monitoring. Like landscape design, building architecture and A significant part of pest management is done well layout are potentially important factors to consider before a building or a landscape is constructed. De- in pest management (Figure 11.1). “Building pests signing with pest management in mind is one of the out” of a structure simply means “making the inva- most effective urban IPM techniques available. Both sion and the persistence of pests there difficult.” De- structures and landscapes can be designed that will creasing a pest’s initial attraction to a building by (1) make it difficult for a new pest to enter and to live and (2) make subsequent management tactics much more efficient.

Landscape Design Urban landscape IPM begins in the designing phase, with a goal of minimizing potential pest problems. Early decisions as to variety selection and placement, soil and seedbed preparation, planting, irrigation, fertilization management, use, and aesthetics are aspects considered by effective IPM planners. Continuously maintaining plant vigor and decreasing environmental stress through appropriate cultural management are key to warding off pests and allowing plants to recover from infestation rapidly. Landscape pest problems often can be avoided sim- Figure 11.1. Like landscape design, building architecture and layout are potentially important factors to consider ply by selecting plant varieties that are well suited in pest management. Photo courtesy of T. Gibb, to the site and to the purpose for which the landscape Purdue University. is being used. Choosing plant species that are certified tolerant or resistant to pests is part of that de- modifying lights, eliminating food and water sourc- sign. Laboratory and field screening of plant variet- es, and restricting harborage sites greatly diminish- ies and cultivars resistant to pests has been underway es the susceptibility of a building to pest invasion. for several decades. Methods involve choosing plant Easy entrance to the building can be denied pests by genotypes relatively tolerant of, resistant to, or un- means of open door and window policies, screens, and desired by pests and, subsequently, combining these door sweeps, and through the use of sealants in foun- genetically resistant traits with other desirable traits. dation cracks and in plumbing and electrical conduits. Lists of resistant or pest tolerant plants should be Ensuring that air intake and air handling systems are studied, and plant selections made as part of a pre- working properly and are closed off adequately is determined landscape design. Even minimal efforts important. Controlling temperature and humidity in the initial design of landscapes and in the selection and restricting or eliminating food sources through of plants can pay huge dividends later if pests invade. sanitation and food handling procedures can prevent Well before the first seedling is planted, many more pest proliferation inside a building and are essential pest problems can be prevented by planning. Site elements in structural IPM. Choosing and modifying selection and seedbed preparation are two often-over- mechanical equipment such that it is easy to inspect, looked areas. Type and grade of soil, movement of clean, and treat for pests makes IPM possible in many water and air, slope of the land, and proximity of other urban structures. 194 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Cultural Controls gotten science. New chemical insecticides were cheap and seemed to be “cure-alls.” But, as has been dis- Once established, pests become part of the urban cussed, this perception was unfounded. As the dis- environment. They affect their surroundings, but also advantages of synthetic chemicals became evident are affected—directly or indirectly—by every practice and public demands for more environmentally friend- occurring there. Many cultural practices can be ma- ly methods of pest control grew, biological controls nipulated to the detriment of pests. Making the pest again were sought. Biological controls offer many environment less conducive to reproduction is the goal advantages over conventional chemicals. Chief of cultural pest control. In urban buildings, sanita- among these advantages are the facts that biological tion often is the most important cultural control. controls can be safer both to people and to the envi- Denying pests access to food, water, and harborage ronment and, once introduced, can continue to be ef- through increased sanitation makes it difficult for fective without human intervention. Certain instanc- pests to enter or to persist once they are present. es of introduced biological controls have succeeded In landscape management, it is accepted general- whereas other types of controls have been disappoint- ly that healthy, vigorously growing plants can with- ing. Of course, care must be taken to avoid introduc- stand more pressure from disease, weed, and inspect ing biologicals into the urban environment only to pests than stressed plants can. Doubtless, cultural realize later that they have become pests themselves. practices such as mowing, fertilizing, pruning, mulching, and irrigating all affect pest populations indirectly. Inattention to these management practices can create stresses that encourage the development of pests. Proper identification and alleviation of these stress factors through cultural management changes are some of the longest-term and most environmentally conscious methods of pest control in the landscape. For example, understanding that high populations of weeds in a turfgrass stand are good indicators of stressed turfgrass and subsequently resolving such stress problems, be they irrigation, traffic, soil compaction, or other, can diminish the need for herbicides. Likewise, trees under stress due to any cause are relatively attractive and susceptible to wood borers and other insect pests. Landscape managers must understand the interactions that irrigating, fertilizing, mowing and pruning, soil compacting, and other human activities have on potential plant pest problems.

Biological Control Using living organisms to control pests is not a new science, but this approach is beginning to see greater acceptance in urban pest control. Biological control lends itself more readily to landscape situations but has implications to indoor pest populations, as well. Evidence of biological control efforts exists from ancient times, and significant control was achieved through the introduction of biological controls in the early part of the twentieth century. With the intro- Figure 11.2. In nature, many different parasites or predators can duction of modern synthetic chemical insecticides, be found, each with a unique ability to persist, to kill, and to seek out potential hosts. Photo by Scott especially during the latter half of the twentieth cen- Bauer, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Depart- tury, however, biological control became a largely for- ment of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. Urban Integrated Pest Management 195

Predatory or parasitic organisms feeding directly As discussed under “Biological Controls,” fungal, on landscape pests have shown promise in their abil- bacterial, or viral diseases can be used to control cer- ities to control landscape pests. In nature, many dif- tain pests. Biological microbes (or microbe deriva- ferent parasites or predators can be found, each with tives) also are effective tools in urban IPM. Several a unique ability to persist, to kill, and to seek out po- such materials have been developed for use in land- tential hosts (Figure 11.2). Pest-specific diseases also scape as well as in structural pest control. have been used with different degrees of success in Discovering new and better alternative control the management of pest populations. Successful or- agents is an active area of research promising to af- ganisms, mostly fungi and bacteria, have been prop- fect the future of urban-pest control significantly. To agated in the laboratory and now are available date, these agents have been effective as bait or as commercially. broadcast or foliarly applied sprays. New technology Naturally occurring biological control agents prob- and biochemistry also have aided the proliferation of ably are more important than one might imagine (Ze- urban IPM. Certain pesticides have been developed nger and Gibb 2001). Insect pests usually are con- that are engineered to be taken up and transported trolled naturally by beneficial arthropods and systemically through a plant, thereby improving ef- pathogens that can moderate or often prevent out- ficacy and decreasing nontarget toxicity. Biotechnol- breaks of pest populations. It is telling that land- ogy now aims to incorporate the genes responsible for scapes not managed intensively seldom are prone to producing toxins through insertion into the plant. serious pest outbreaks. Society has learned, through Significant progress in the field of molecular genet- hard-won experience, that when the natural balance ics has been made on a number of plants. is upset by chemical or cultural interference, pests readily move in. Thus, careful consideration must be given to the effect that each management input can Chemical Pesticides have on a system’s beneficial organisms. Use of synthetic chemical pesticides also is an im- Identifying and conserving naturally existing flo- portant aspect of most IPM strategies. Chemical ral and faunal pest-control organisms are logical steps treatments are especially effective because they can in IPM implementation. Maintaining an equilibrium be applied with relative ease, are quick acting, and between pests and their natural controls will dimin- can bring a high pest-population down to an accept- ish the need for pesticides, save urban dwellers mon- able level rapidly. When used in this manner and for ey, and benefit the urban ecosystem greatly. this purpose, chemicals can be an integral part of an Overuse of nonselective chemicals interferes direct- IPM program. Only when pesticides, to the exclusion ly with the potential of naturally occurring beneficial of other techniques, are relied on continually to main- organisms. Spot treatments and appropriate moni- tain pest populations at low levels do problems arise. toring of pest distributions allow urban-pest manag- Recently, great strides have been made in the de- ers to avoid the overuse of chemicals and, thus, the velopment of low-impact chemistries. Environmen- negative effects on nontarget beneficials. Releasing tally friendly, narrow-spectrum, selectively less-tox- a pest population from its natural biological checks ic pesticides have been developed by the chemical and balances may set the stage for a dramatic and industry. As these have been registered by the Envi- often devastating resurgence of a pest population. ronmental Protection Agency, older, higher impact, In summary, urban-pest managers need not wait less environmentally compatible pesticides have been for the discovery of new or better biological controls removed from the market. but can develop their own through conservation and encouragement of naturally occurring predators and parasites. Targeting in Time and Space The solution to a certain pest problem does not always depend on a new or better pesticide. Often the Alternative Pesticides difference between success and failure in decreasing Toxins such as azadiractin, rotenone, abadilla, and a pest population lies in knowing where, when, and pyrethrin all are derived from plants. Although these how to apply the selected control technique. Such are not, technically, biological pesticides, they are knowledge usually is based on a study of pest habits materials with a botanical origin that offer some of and biologies. the same pest management advantages that true bi- Application timing of many landscape manage- ological controls do. ment techniques can be improved through the use of 196 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies pathogen, weed, and insect phenological models that greatly the ability of structural-pest managers to con- track the development of pests by using temperature trol rodent and insect pests such as ants, cockroach- as the dependent variable. The use of temperature- es, and termites. Baiting techniques significantly based models or of tracking phenological indicator decrease the amount of toxic materials applied in the plants can suggest to pest managers an appropriate urban environment and yet achieve pest population timing for applications. Timing specific treatment control equal to or better than that of traditional applications according to these models has proved methods. much more advantageous than timing them according to a calendar spray schedule. Targeting pesticide applications to those sites Evaluation and Record Keeping where monitoring has determined a need for control (spot treating) decreases the amount of pesticide ap- Not only is methodical record keeping an important plied and conserves natural controls already in place tool providing historical data, but it can help the (Figure 11.3). Integrated pest management dictates manager evaluate control techniques over time. Af- that spot treatments replace blanket treatments ter pest management practices are incorporated into wherever possible. urban areas, their efficacy must be evaluated. Deci- sions to continue, to increase, or to suspend a pest management practice should be made only in light of the effects of its previous use. Evaluations can be educational in the long run and are an especially crucial feature of IPM. Site-specific factors such as pest-infected area size, exact location, population estimates, damage amounts, symptoms, dates, and, where appropriate, weather conditions leading up to infestation are types of information that should be recorded. When examined in relation to the effect of current IPM practices, such information allows pest managers to make informed decisions. As a rule, thorough record keeping provides a database from which future pest management decisions can be made. Figure 11.3. Targeting pesticide applications to those areas in which monitoring has determined a need for control In conclusion, urban IPM programs are based on (spot treating) decreases the amount of pesticide the same basic philosophies that agricultural IPM applied and conserves natural controls already in programs are. Minor differences occur because urban place. Photo courtesy of T. Gibb, Purdue University. IPM involves pest/human interactions that may occur in buildings or landscapes in which health and Using new technologies to deliver pesticides direct- social concerns are crucial factors. Inspection and ly into locations where pests are present (that is, in monitoring tools dictate the application of various the target zone) diminishes the probability of exposure management tactics through a decision-making pro- to nontarget organisms, decreases the quantity of cess that considers potential injury by pests as well pesticides needed for treatment, and increases pesti- as potential injury from pest control tactics. Urban cide efficacy. Replacing baseboard with crack and IPM strategies are, ultimately, a compilation of many crevice applications is one way of targeting pesticides common sense decisions based on a sound under- in buildings and structures. Injection techniques may standing of the pest, the environment, and the social be used to deliver ever-smaller amounts of pesticides implications of one or more control tactics. into soils or trees in the urban landscape. Select pesticides also may be taken up systemically and diffused throughout the plant, ultimately killing only those insects feeding directly on it. Appendix A. Glossary Professional urban IPM continually incorporates Environmental sickness. An illness linked to ex- new procedures and technologies into pest manage- posures to chemicals in the environment. ment, thereby decreasing both the populations of Integrated. The quality of being an outcome of sev- pests and the negative effects of pesticide applications. eral management options brought to bear on a Development of pesticide-laced baits has improved single problem. Urban Integrated Pest Management 197

Multiple chemical sensitivity. See environmen- Miller, C. S. 1997. Toxicant-induced loss of tolerance: An emerg- tal sickness. ing theory of disease. Environ Health Perspect 105:445–453. Pest control. A one-dimensional emphasis on pes- National Research Council. 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. ticidal remedies for pest problems. Olkowski, W., S. Daar, and H. Olkowski. 1991. Common Sense Pest management. A deliberate process of treating Pest Control. Taunton Press, Newtown, Connecticut. 716 pp. a pest with a management tool such as a pesti- Owens, J. M. 1986. Urban pest management: Concept and con- cide. text. P. 112. In G. Bennett and J. Owens (eds.). Advances in Spot treating. Targeting pesticide applications to Urban Pest Management. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 399 pp. those areas in which monitoring has determined Rosenstreich, D. L. and P. Eggleston. 1997. The role of cockroach a need for control. allergy and exposure to cockroach allergen in causing morbidi- Target zone. Locations in which pests are present. ty among inner-city children with asthma. N Engl J Med Toxicant-induced loss of tolerance. A theory that 336:1356–1363. may explain why overexposure to a single envi- Sadof, C. S. and M. J. Raup. 1997. Aesthetic thresholds and their development. Pp. 203–226. In L. G. Higley and L. P. Pedigo ronmental pollutant (not always a pesticide) leads (eds.). Economic Threshold for Integrated Pest Management. to heightened sensitivity to several other unrelat- University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 327 pp. ed substances, including pesticides, in the envi- Schumann, G. L., P. J. Bittum, M. L. Elliott, and P. P. Cobb. 1997. ronment. IPM Handbook for Golf Courses. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Trade-off. Potential advantages due to decreases in Michigan. 264 pp. Sporik, R., S. T. Holgate, T. A. E. Platts-Mills, and J. J. Cogswell. pest populations, and potential disadvantages due 1990. Exposure to house-dust mite allergen (Der p 1) and the to management applications. development of asthma in childhood: A prospective study. Urban integrated pest management. A process N Engl J Med 323:502–507. with five main components, whether inside or Zenger, J. T. and T. J. Gibb. 2001. Identification and impact of outside of buildings: (1) inspection, (2) monitor- egg predators of Cyclocephala lurida and Popillia japonica (Co- leoptera: Scarabaeidae) in turfgrass. Environ Entomol 30:425– ing, (3) situation-specific decision making, (4) pest 430. management technique application, and (5) eval- Ziem, G. E. 1992. Multiple chemical sensitivity: Treatment and uation and record keeping. follow-up with avoidance and control of chemical exposures. Urban pest. An organism that damages homes, Advancing the understanding of multiple chemical sensitivity. structures, clothing, food, or landscape plantings Toxicol Ind Health 8:181–202. or harms, annoys, or otherwise interferes with humans and their activities. Related Web Sites Sustainable Urban Landscapes Information Series. 2002. Home- page, (9 Septem- Literature Cited ber 2002) Technical Resource Center for IPM in Public Schools. 2002. Home- Gibb, T. 1999. Turfgrass Pest Management: A Correspondence page, Course. Center for Urban and Industrial Pest Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 452 pp. 198 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

12 Economics in the Design, Assessment, Adoption, and Policy Analysis of Integrated Pest Management

How Economics Relates to Understanding of producer objectives and constraints can aid in the design of readily adoptable IPM Integrated Pest Management methods. Integrated pest management research has identified traits associated with adopters. Such in- Why do farmers sometimes fail to adopt integrat- formation can guide extension education, new IPM ed pest management (IPM) practices that have suc- technology development, and IPM-friendly public ceeded on experiment stations? Would crop insurance policy design. encourage IPM adoption? How much should the gov- Finally, aggregate effects of IPM adoption are of ernment invest in promoting IPM? What is the val- interest to both public- and private-sector decision ue of IPM research? makers. The value of changes brought about by IPM These questions center not on pests and control is important to government officials attempting to methods, but on farmers and society—specifically, on determine whether a program is worthwhile; the what motivates human behavior and on how the so- same information may help the owner of a private cial value of IPM products and services is or should firm decide how much to invest in research and de- be measured. Answers to these and similar questions velopment of IPM-related goods and services. Where are central to motivating individual decisions about social benefits are substantially greater than private IPM and to evaluating public IPM programs. The ones realized by growers, it may make sense to cre- economics section of the last Council for Agricultural ate public policies encouraging IPM adoption. Policy Science and Technology report on IPM focused exclu- research aids in the determination of which tools are sively on profitability analysis (CAST 1982), but in the effective and how justified the government is in in- intervening two decades the explosion of IPM econom- vesting in them. ic analyses has extended over a much more diverse This chapter will review economic analysis as used terrain. in the following endeavors: Perhaps the most commonly asked question is 1. designing IPM decision systems; whether IPM is worthwhile from the perspectives of producer, consumer, and/or society at large. Benefit- 2. predicting private, producer-level profitability of cost analysis (BCA) is the tool used most commonly IPM strategies; to answer this question. Although straightforward in 3. weighing IPM effects on broader producer objec- theory, BCA can become quite complex when costs or tives such as decreasing risks to crop yield, hu- benefits are measured with difficulty, as is the case man health, and environmental quality; for many IPM applications. Benefit-cost analysis can 4. assessing IPM adoption patterns; be financial, when it includes only cash costs and ben- 5. evaluating public IPM programs; and efits, or economic, when it includes the cost of alternatives not pursued and the external effects of a pest 6. designing public policy related to IPM. management practice on other parts of society. Be- cause both society and individuals often care about attributes beyond average profitability to farmers, Benefit-Cost Analysis and Pest BCA sometimes calls for estimating the value of the Damage Thresholds seemingly priceless, such as clean water, biodiversity, or more-stable crop yields. Benefit-cost analysis “Is it worth it?” is the question at the heart of any is used not only in assessing projects but also in as- assessment of technology. For IPM, the question is sessing potential adoptability and in designing com- useful at three levels: (1) design of pest damage puterized decision support tools that incorporate pest thresholds, (2) potential adoptability for individual damage thresholds. producers, and (3) public assessment of IPM projects

198 Economics in the Design, Assessment, Adoption, and Policy Analysis of Integrated Pest Management 199 and programs. The original notion of economic threshold (Stern et al. 1959) was based on the insight that sometimes the value of yield saved is less than the cost of pesticide applied. At the heart of the original IPM concept, pest damage thresholds exemplify a class of ex ante BCA; that is, they predict likely future value rather than measure actual value after the fact. The simplest analyses of benefits and costs use 0 partial budgets. These assume typical conditions, no carryover effects, predictable prices, predictable yield ÐPCC effects from pests, and decision-maker focus on prof- Net gain from pest control ($/ha) itability. Partial budgets evaluate whether benefits Ds* (due to increased revenue and decreased costs) out- Pest density weigh burdens (due to decreased revenue and in- Figure 12.1. Static net gain function from pest control. creased costs). Partial budgets are the basis for the simple economic or action thresholds for pesticide spraying (Cousens 1987; Pedigo, Hutchins, and Hig- This observation has led to the consideration of ley 1986; Stern et al. 1959). The net gain function il- dynamic thresholds (Dd*), which take into account fu- lustrates the idea of gain in gross margin (total reve- ture effects, typically by predicting pest population dy- nues minus costs that vary) in relation to pest density namics, cropping patterns, and crop values. Dynam- (Auld, Menz, and Tisdell 1987). Figure 12.1 illus- ic thresholds often use net-present value methods to trates that when pest density is very low, pest control discount the value of future income (Auld, Menz, and costs outweigh benefits, but as pest density increas- Tisdell 1987; Cousens 1987; Pedigo, Hutchins, and es above threshold density, or Ds*, benefits from yield Higley 1986; Swinton and King 1994; Taylor and Burt protection begin to exceed control costs. This is the 1984). Dynamic thresholds for pesticide-based con- kind of threshold most often used in the first genera- trol tend to increase pesticide use because they fac- tion of bioeconomic IPM decision support software tor in future as well as present benefits from pest con- described in Textbox 12.1. trol. The shift in the net gain function is illustrated Many IPM practices have effects over more than in Figure 12.2. Apart from providing dynamic thresh- one season. Killing a pest today not only protects olds for chemical control of pests, multiperiod BCAs against damage the pest would have done but also also are useful for predicting the value of investment may prevent the pest from reproducing and thereby in biocontrol methods such as the release of parasi- protect against damage its offspring would have done. toids to control insect pests.

Textbox 12.1. Economics and decision support systems

In the design of decision support systems (DSSs), specific herbicides and their yield-decreasing effects on economics has contributed directly to the development of crops. Weed management DSSs first were developed as IPM technologies. Decision support systems are herbicide selection models that identify the herbicides most computerized tools for assisting managers in making effectively killing a given mixture of weeds while not complex decisions (King et al. 1993). When they involve harming the growing crop (Mortensen and Coble 1991). changing prices, multiple pest-species, nonlinear yield Most such DSSs were developed for widely planted field reductions, multiyear effects, or environmental costs, IPM crops such as corn and soybean (e.g., Kells and Black thresholds can become very complex. All IPM DSSs that 1991; Kidder, Posner, and Miller 1989; Renner and Black the authors of this report are aware of have been designed 1991). The second generation of weed management DSSs to implement threshold decision rules for pesticide were the so-called bioeconomic models, which predicted application. yield effects from mixed-weed populations and identified Although IPM thresholds first were developed for insects, which treatment, including the no-control option, would weed management has led in the development of DSSs for maximize expected net gains from weed control (Lybecker, IPM. Key reasons for this leadership are that weeds are Schweizer, and Westra 1994; Swinton and King 1994; stationary, and species differ in their susceptibilities to Wiles et al. 1996; Wilkerson, Modena, and Coble 1991). 200 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Producer objectives in addition to profit maximi- threshold is exceeded. Although these spatial tech- zation sometimes can be converted into monetary nologies have not reached the farm level yet, prelim- values to fit into a benefit-cost framework. Such at- inary economic analyses for weeds have shown that, tributes as aesthetic appeal (of a weedless field) or under certain circumstances, spatial pest manage- environmental costs (ECs) (due to harmful pesticides) ment technologies may be profitable (Bennett and give rise to aesthetic and environmental thresholds Pannell 1998; Oriade et al. 1996). (Cousens 1987; Higley and Wintersteen 1992). Fig- The threshold-based IPM methods just described ure 12.2 illustrates how including ECs has the effect rely chiefly on chemical controls once the threshold of shifting down the entire static net-gain curve by the is reached. But purely chemical controls are only one amount of EC. This shift results in a higher pest-density end of the IPM continuum (Benbrook et al. 1996). The threshold (De*) before pest control becomes optimal. burgeoning field of biological pest control (Landis and The recognition that environmental thresholds Orr 2002) has yet to benefit from economic analysis. may differ dramatically from ordinary economic Yet the U.S. federal government has invested signif- thresholds has prompted a surge of attempts to mea- icantly in biocontrols as well as in areawide insect sure producer willingness to pay for decreased pesti- eradication programs irrelevant to threshold-based cide risks (Beach and Carlson 1993; Higley and Win- analyses. These economic analyses of biological controls will call for new research that involves dynamic modeling of component pest and predator populations and that is linked to measuring changes in the economic value of yield saved as a result of using these instead of alternative methods. Dynamic net gains Crops genetically modified for pest resistance or Static net gains herbicide tolerance have, since about 1995, represented a new approach to pest control. Economic assess- Static net gains with environmental cost ments of these crop varieties began to appear from 0 1998 to 1999. Of special interest has been discovering whether farm profits actually increase after seed ÐPCC technology fees charged for patented seeds are ac-

Net gain from pest control ($/ha) counted for. National survey results from 1997 found ÐPCC+EC Dd*Ds* De* that planting herbicide-resistant corn or soybean did Pest density not affect the profit level of U.S. farmers. A 1998 survey of Iowa farmers found similar results for geneti- Figure 12.2. Dynamic and environmental net gain functions. cally modified soybean and for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn (Duffy 1999). United States cotton tersteen 1992; Mullen, Norton, and Reaves 1997; growers did, however, achieve increased profitability Swinton, Owens, and van Ravenswaay 1999). Not by using both herbicide-resistant and Bt varieties only have producers expressed willingness to pay for (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride 2000). this benefit, but studies of pesticide-related sickness and death have found that by decreasing farmers' pesticide exposure, IPM may decrease the cost of Integrated Pest Management and medical treatment and lost work days (Antle and Pin- gali 1994; Crissman, Antle, Capalbo 1998). Agricultural Income Risk A new frontier for IPM thresholds is the inclusion Pest attacks constitute one of the most important of spatial variability because spatial information al- sources of risk to crop yield. Not only can pests de- lows improved targeting of IPM thresholds. Sensing crease yields, they can decrease quality, thereby ex- and mapping technologies allow for the focusing of posing producers to price risk. Prophylactic use of pesticides on areas where pests are present (Johnson, pesticides can act as a form of insurance against pest Cardina, and Mortensen 1997; Weisz, Fleischer, and attack (Feinerman, Herriges, Holtkamp 1992; Smith Smilowitz 1995). Given that many pest populations and Goodwin 1996): that is, risk-averse producers follow highly skewed spatial-density distributions may choose to use more pesticide than strictly neces- (Johnson, Cardina, and Mortensen 1997; Wiles et al. sary because by doing so they expect to decrease the 1992), significant areas may go unsprayed when pest likelihood of crop damage. Although IPM does not control is targeted only at those locations where a necessarily increase yield variability (Lamp, Nielsen, Economics in the Design, Assessment, Adoption, and Policy Analysis of Integrated Pest Management 201 and Dively 1991; Napit et al. 1988), it may do so erman, Herriges, and Holtkamp 1992). Given the (Szmedra, Wetzstein, and McClendon 1990). More public benefits from decreased pesticide use that have important, many growers perceive IPM as exacerbat- the potential to result from more extensive adoption ing yield risk. of IPM, public cost-share programs have been intro- Yield risks from threshold-based IPM strategies duced to decrease the cost of adopting IPM practices. arise at two levels: (1) pest infestation prediction and One example can be found in the Environmental (2) control strategies. Pest density thresholds are Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) of the 1996 Fed- based on damage predictions. These, in turn, depend eral Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. In on accurate and timely pest demographic predictions. selected U.S. counties, the EQIP program compen- Such predictions can be faulty because of poor scout- sates participating farmers for certain IPM related ing and/or pest population assessment, weather con- costs such as scouting. These cost-share programs do ditions unexpectedly favoring pest populations, or not, however, address yield and income risk associ- poor predictive models. Even if the pest action thresh- ated with the performance of threshold-based IPM old is predicted properly, poor weather or competing methods. Such risks have been addressed directly in tasks may prevent the grower from timely treatment. the design of new crop-insurance products that, as a Certain growers view calendar spraying as less risky result of collaboration between the U.S. Department on these accounts. of Agriculture's (USDA) Risk Management Agency Economic research has proposed IPM insurance and the Agricultural Conservation Innovation Cen- to insulate farmers from the income risk associated ter (ACIC) (See Textbox 12.2), have been developed with adopting threshold-based IPM practices (Fein- for IPM users (ACIC 2001).

Textbox 12.2. Two integrated pest management insurance policies

Corn Root Worm Integrated Pest Management Policy Step 6: If the insured crop is adjusted for having increased harvest expenses, an indemnity will be paid to Insurance soon will be available for farmers using corn cover the increased expenses. Maximum additional root worm IPM systems. This policy will permit a farmer harvest expenses are equal to the average custom- to rely on the advice of an expert who uses approved harvesting rate for the local region where the scientific scouting procedures. If the farmer decides to insured acres are located. follow the “don’t treat” recommendation and does not trust the scouting procedure fully, he can purchase an insurance Potato Late Blight Policy policy. The policy will cost about $5 acre (a.)/compared with the $12 to 15/a. cost of the root worm application. This policy permits potato farmers to follow the “wait The policy will work as follows: until fungus conditions exist” announcement made by extension in certain states. By spraying after this Step 1: A certified crop advisor scouts for corn root worm recommendation is made, the farmer could possibly avoid beetle in July and August and makes “treat” or 1 to 3 fungicide sprays/season. “don’t treat” recommendation for the subsequent Maine, Wisconsin, and New York have the weather corn crop. systems to make this policy work. Under this program, Step 2: The grower applies for insurance and follows the a grower purchases the insurance policy and waits to spray “don’t treat” recommendation during the subsequent until the recommendation is made by the local extension spring. forecasting system. If late blight is detected before or Step 3: A root rating analysis is performed to determine within ten days of recommendation to spray, an indemnity if a loss occurred. An insurance claim is made if is paid. The indemnity covers the value of the lost crop, the root rating is 3.5 or higher (based on the Iowa cost of destroying infected plants, and recovery treatment. State University scale of 1 to 6). Excerpted from: Agricultural Conservation Innovation Step 4: If the rating is 3.5 or more, the policy is adjusted Center. 2001. Promoting conservation innovation in (an indemnity is paid). agriculture through crop insurance, May 1, Step 5: At crop maturity, if the insured determines that (27 September harvest will be slowed significantly due to lodging 2002) NOTE: site was valid 1999Ð2002. Find current of the insured acres, an insurance claim may be related information at ) 202 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Adoption of Integrated Pest have taken place in the United States (Caswell and Shoemaker 1993; Ferguson and Yee 1995; Fernandez- Management: Why Do Growers Cornejo, Beach, and Huang 1994; Fernandez-Corne- Adopt? jo, Jans, and Smith 1998; Harper et al. 1990; Mc- Namara, Wetzstein, and Douce 1991; Napit et al. Public benefits from IPM—notably from decreased 1988; Vandeman et al. 1994). Characteristics influ- pesticide risks—have attracted government interest encing adoption can be divided roughly into four cat- in fostering adoption by farmers. Whereas the use of egories based on the technology, the farmer, the farm BCA for IPM thresholds focuses on the individual physical environment, and the farm institutional en- producer, IPM adoption research tends to focus on the vironment (Feder, Just, and Zilberman 1985). In gen- aggregate producer population. This focus on the eral, adopters of IPM practices are younger and more producer means not only measuring the effects of a educated than the average grower (Drost 1996). In- set of IPM practices on a single producer, but also tegrated pest management adopters also tend to have measuring which factors affect producer adoption and less farming experience and to be more likely to use how many producers have adopted (or will adopt) a computer (Leslie and Cuperus 1993, as cited in these IPM practices. Chapter 9). The first step in adoption studies is to describe what proportion of the producer population has adopted the IPM practices in question. The next step is to Public Program Assessment determine which factors encourage adoption. Adop- tion studies typically are cross-sectional surveys tar- The economic methods discussed so far address the geted at clarifying why certain farmers take up a giv- questions “Would an IPM practice be profitable if en IPM practice whereas others do not. adopted?” “Would it be risky?” and “What are the Numerous cross-sectional studies of IPM adoption characteristics of adopters?” Public program evalua-

Table 12.1. The impact of IPM on pesticide use, yields, and profits—summary of empirical results (Fernandez-Cornejo et al. 1998)

Pesticide use

Profit IPM Total number Most Range (net returns Commodity techniques of studies common effect (percentage) Yield per acre)

Cotton Scouting only 10 Increase Ð64 to +92 Increase1 Increase1 Cotton Scouting/others2 9 Decrease Ð98 to +34 Increase1 Increase3 Soybean Scouting only 5 Decrease Ð21 to +83 Increase4 Increase4 Soybean Scouting/others2 2 Decrease Ð100 to Ð85 NA Increase Corn Scouting 1 Increase +15 to +47 Increase Increase Corn Scouting/others2 2 Decrease Ð50 to +67 Increase5 NA Peanut Scouting only 5 Decrease Ð81 to +177 Increase6 Increase5 Fruits/nuts Scouting only 6 Decrease Ð43 to +24 Increase7 Increase7 Fruits/nuts Scouting/others8 4 Decrease Ð41 to Ð12 Same5 Same5 Vegetables Scouting/others8 7 Decrease Ð67 to +13 Same Increase5

NA = not available or not applicable

1Only six studies reported results. 2Scouting plus other techniques or other techniques alone.

3Only eight studies reported results.

4Only four studies reported results. 5Only one study reported results.

6Only three studies reported results.

7Only two studies reported results. 8All studies but one considered insect IPM only. Economics in the Design, Assessment, Adoption, and Policy Analysis of Integrated Pest Management 203 tion asks a broader question: “What is the net effect minant of decreased pesticide use. on social welfare of this IPM practice (or program)?” Answering this last question calls for aggregating the individual-level profitability analysis according to Measuring the Value of Health and IPM adopter numbers and adoption timing. Because Environmental Effects social welfare is about more than agricultural produc- As has been mentioned, BCA for public IPM pro- ers, a public program assessment also must integrate grams differs from individually oriented programs in effects on consumers and nature. Economic evalua- terms not only of aggregating adopters, but of mea- tions of IPM programs are sufficiently widespread to suring effects on other individuals. Specifically, BCA spawn published literature reviews (Fernandez-Corne- for public IPM programs factors in the unintended jo, Jans, and Smith 1998; Norton and Mullen 1994). effects that economists call externalities by virtue of The most comprehensive summary of private, pro- their being external to the immediate interests of the ducer-level economic evaluations of IPM programs to decision maker. When a cotton farmer burns crop res- date was developed by Fernandez-Cornejo, Jans, and idues to destroy overwintering boll weevil eggs and Smith (1998) and updated the work of Norton and Mullen. Table 12.1 demonstrates that although most of the 51 IPM programs studied increased profits, increased yields, and decreased pesticide use, these effects did not occur universally. For no commodity group did IPM decrease pesticide use across the board. In fact, IPM in cotton increased pesticide use more often than not.

Measuring Cumulative Adoption of Integrated Pest Management a new IPM practice a new To facilitate prediction of long-term program effects, future technology adoption trends must be projected. The diffusion of a new technology tends, over time, to follow a sigmoid curve (Rogers 1983), as Cumulative proportionCumulative of population adopting shown in Figure 12.3. At first, only the daring, experimental few adopt. But as the new technique be- Time comes recognized as attractive, the adoption rate ac- Figure 12.3. Classic curve illustrating increasing cumulative celerates. Adoption pace tapers off as only a few technology adoption over time. laggards remain among those who might find the technology worthwhile. Most empirical attempts at the smoke triggers an asthmatic attack in a neighbor's estimating adoption curves have followed the lead of child, the asthmatic attack is an externality not con- Griliches (1957), who fitted a logistic function to time- sidered by the farmer. Public-policy analyses aiming series data on the adoption of hybrid corn in the Unit- to evaluate net social benefits attempt to estimate the ed States. Recently, Fernandez-Cornejo, Alexander, value of changes in the level of such external effects and Goodhue (2002) extended this line of research (Carlson 1989). with a model of agricultural technology disadoption Attempts to measure the value of IPM methods in that explains how adoption levels can decline, rather efforts to decrease environmental and health risks than only increase. have given rise to three major types of research. The Fernandez-Cornejo and Castaldo (1998) statistical- first type aims to measure the effects of pesticides on ly estimated logistical adoption curves for a variety human health. Summarizing the large and growing of IPM practices in the major fruits produced in the literature on the medical epidemiology of pesticide United States. Their work identified the target date exposure is, however, beyond the scope of this chap- for 75% adoption of each technique in each crop. They ter. Generally, the epidemiological studies are cost- also studied factors affecting adoption rate. Stock of ly analyses of large human-population samples. public and private research turned out to be the most These studies attempt to relate pesticide exposure to important determinants of scouting adoption, and changes in probability of death or of illness from var- public research was the single most significant deter- ious causes. 204 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

The very costliness of these methods has triggered (Alston, Norton, and Pardey 1998; Waibel et al. 1999). the second type of research, which aims at develop- In fact, most thoroughly documented cases of returns ing low-cost indicators of both human health and en- to IPM research are based on plant breeding for ge- vironmental risk. The growing need for sound indi- netic pest resistance, as in the instance of resistance cators of these risks spawned at least two major to soybean cyst nematode (Bradley and Duffy 1982). workshops in 1998 (Day 1998; Waibel et al. 1999). The The only comprehensive IPM program assessments challenge is to strike a reasonable compromise be- available that the authors know of are Napit and col- tween, on the one hand, the formidable expense of leagues’ 1988 evaluation of extension IPM effects comprehensively measuring environmental effects across nine commodity-state combinations in the and, on the other, the questionable reliability of mea- United States, and Waibel’s 1999 attempt to evalu- suring health risk in terms of facile impact-indicators ate the returns to IPM at international agricultural such as weight of pesticide active ingredient/hectare, research centers. Napit and colleagues found that a measure that ignores both toxicity and exposure across a diverse set of commodities and U.S. states, likelihood. No single indicator is used widely at IPM mainly generated less variable and higher net present to measure health and environmental risks; returns to growers, and greater economic gains to alternative measures being debated include risk-ra- consumers, than traditional production methods did. tios, scoring tables or rankings, and fuzzy expert Unexpectedly, pesticide costs rose with IPM use in systems. several states. The researchers conducted economic The third type of research related to externalities surplus analyses in only the two instances where they of pest management aims to develop economic mea- found statistically significant differences in net re- sures of (1) environmental and health effects of pes- turns in cotton, both between nonusers and low us- ticides and (2) related influences of IPM programs. ers of IPM and between low and high users of IPM. These measurement attempts can be situated on a As a result, very high annual internal rates of return spectrum placing monetary value on human health to IPM extension programs were calculated (452% for and environmental effects (Antle and Pingali 1994; Texas cotton and 300% for Mississippi cotton). Al- Beach and Carlson 1993; Harper and Zilberman 1989; though internal rates of return for other IPM prac- Mullen, Norton, and Reaves 1997; Swinton, Owens, tices were not published, it can be inferred that they and van Ravenswaay 1999) and those simply identi- were lower, for they would be calculated from small- fying a risk-benefit trade-off (Bouzaher et al. 1992; er differences in annual net returns between non-, Crissman, Antle, and Capalbo 1998). Valuation anal- low, and high IPM user groups. Unlike Napit et al. yses have substantiated that both the public and the (1988), Waibel (1999) found it impossible to conduct pesticide user are willing to pay to decrease pesticide a quantitative economic-surplus analysis of returns risks, a goal that IPM can be used to achieve. But the to research in IPM. Instead, he surveyed the scien- specific numerical values emerging from valuation tists involved, reviewed publication productivity, and studies are controversial, both ethically—for suggest- illustrated his research with economic case studies. ing that it is possible to place a value on what many consider priceless (i.e., human health)—and method- ologically—for omitting certain types of risk, which Public Policy: Intended and Unintended most studies do. Trade-off analyses can be useful for Effects on Integrated Pest Management decision making purposes but do not contribute use- United States government policies have affected fully to measurements of aggregate program benefits. IPM adoption and research through various channels, directly and indirectly. Direct efforts to foster IPM adoption include cost sharing for selected adopters of Overall Returns to Research and Outreach in IPM practices under the EQIP program, and federal Integrated Pest Management subsidies for IPM extension and research under the The difficulties in measuring and valuing IPM ef- USDA's regional IPM programs and regional research fects may account for the scarcity of studies estimat- projects. As has been noted, the USDA’s Risk Man- ing economic returns to public IPM research and out- agement Agency and ACIC are conducting a pilot IPM reach activities. Because forms of IPM involve insurance program for corn root worm management information use or subtle changes in the rationale for in the Midwest. management practices, adoption is made much more But the policies with indirect effects on IPM adop- difficult to quantify than for discrete commodity-spe- tion probably have greater effects. For years, U.S. cific technologies such as crop varietal introductions federal price supports and deficiency payments for Economics in the Design, Assessment, Adoption, and Policy Analysis of Integrated Pest Management 205 wheat and feed grains discouraged IPM by raising tions recently have begun using market methods to crop prices, which implicitly decreased the thresh- promote IPM. In response to surveys revealing con- old for pest control (Reichelderfer and Hinkle 1989). sumer willingness to pay for foods with decreased pes- Because exchange rate misalignment distorted the ticide residues, or otherwise produced in an environ- relation between chemical inputs (often imported) mentally friendly manner, “ecolabels” have been and crop products (often exported) (Norton, G. W. developed to certify the quality of the production pro- 2000. Personal communication), similar effects have cess (van Ravenswaay and Blend 1999). In Europe occurred in other nations. and the United States, a small number of food retail- Environmental policy, notably federal pesticide ers have begun using these labels. Among these are policy, has had mixed effects on IPM adoption. Pes- IPM certification labels, such as those used on canned ticide policy has been a bastion of rigid command and vegetables sold by Wegman's food stores in western control rules during a period when much federal en- New York State. vironmental policy has been becoming more flexible Such labeling practices can have two effects. If (Ogg 1999). Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungi- processors require IPM of their growers, then IPM is cide and Rodenticide Act and its successor, the Food mandated by the market. If IPM is a voluntary ac- Quality Protection Act of 1996, the Environmental tivity fetching a higher price, then its adoption is com- Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with register- pensated. Either by regulation or inducement, there ing pesticides for specified uses. But in banning cer- exists an incentive for producers to adopt practices tain uses, the EPA applies a very blunt tool that re- necessary to achieve certification. So far, the first moves those pesticides from the arsenal available to instance seems to predominate in the United States; IPM practitioners (Swinton and Batie 2001; Zilber- that is, IPM is becoming a prerequisite for growers man and Millock 1997). Although one might expect to obtain access to vegetable and fruit production them to encourage IPM adoption, EPA policies have contracts. not necessarily done so. For instance, because EPA Meanwhile, nongovernmental organizations and inspectors encounter difficulty in monitoring sur- producer commodity organizations are collaborating face- and groundwater quality, serious attempts to on IPM certification programs. Such programs certi- curtail nonpoint source water pollution—the very fy that growers are using best pest management prac- type of pollution that IPM has the greatest poten- tices. A current example is a joint project between the tial to alleviate—are discouraged. World Wildlife Fund, the Wisconsin Potato and Veg- etable Growers Association, and the University of Private Sector Initiatives Wisconsin (See Textbox 12.3). The collaboration has Private sector and nongovernmental organiza- developed an IPM certification program that is gov-

Textbox 12.3. Public-Private partnerships: World Wildlife Fund and Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association

In 1996, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the of the project, namely, setting ambitious IPM adoption Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association and pesticide risk reduction goals, promoting research (WPVGA), an environmental organization and an agri- and extension on IPM practices, and agreeing on risk- cultural commodity association respectively, established reduction indicators, provide a promising model for other a precedent setting partnership to work toward more agricultural groups to follow when addressing their own ecologically sound agricultural practices. The WPVGA pest management challenges. represents about 175 farmers who raise about 85,000 a. of Wisconsin's experience shows that committed potatoes/yr. The goal of this unique collaboration is to growers, backed up by a proactive organized trade promote development and wider use of economically viable association and a strong university research team, can farming systems that are safer for farm families, consumers, innovate around pest and pesticide regulatory problems and the environment. (see Chapter 2, textbox 2.2). The WPVGA’s proactive approach shows that adoption For more information on the WWF program, see the of biointensive IPM can diminish substantially growers’ World Wide Web sites and . toxicity in 1997 compared with the 1995 baseline—testify For more information on the WPGVA, see . 206 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies erned by the nonprofit organization Protected Appendix B. Glossary Harvest. In conclusion, economics during the last 20 years Dynamic thresholds. Cut-off levels for decisions (yr) has played a key role in IPM technology assess- taking into account future effects, typically by pre- ment and policy analysis. Economic analysis has been dicting pest population dynamics, cropping pat- applied to evaluate expected profitability, ex ante and terns, and crop values. ex post adoption, social welfare effects, returns to re- Economic benefit-cost analysis. Tool used to de- search, and policies affecting pest management gen- trmine whether IPM is worthwhile from the per- erally. In specific instances, economic analysis has spectives of producer, consumer, and/or society at been significant in the development of threshold- large; including the opportunity cost of sacrificing based IPM decision support software. current income and the external effects of a pest For all that has been accomplished, important un- management practice on other parts of society. finished business remains in at least two areas. First, Externalities. Unintended economic effects experi- the economic assessment of biological pest manage- enced by someone other than the decision mak- ment requires more thorough development. This will er. require (1) dynamic modeling of interactions between Financial benefit-cost analysis. Tool used to de- pest and predator or parasitoid populations, (2) esti- trmine whether IPM is worthwhile from the per- mating changes in pest effects on valued commodities, spectives of producer, consumer, and/or society at (3) comparing biological pest management with non- large; including only cash costs and benefits. biological benchmark pest control methods, and (4) Gross margin. Total revenues minus costs that vary. assessing effects on profitability, human health, and Net gain function. Gain in gross margin over pest environmental quality. Pest resistance to pesticides, control costs as pest population increases. too, will need to be considered. The second area needing more economic input is Literature Cited the measurement of returns to research. The daunting problems with defining and measuring IPM con- Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center (ACIC). 2001. Pro- tinue to hamper attempts at comprehensive assess- moting conservation innovation in agriculture through crop ment of IPM research, and no major IPM extension insurance, May 1, (27 September 2002) assessment has been completed in the United States Alston, J. M., G. W. Norton, and P. G. Pardey. 1998. Science un- since the mid-1980s. This failure to measure bene- der Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research fits comprehensively is likely to deprive IPM pro- Evaluation and Priority Setting. CAB International, New York. grams of the public support that the available evi- Antle, J. M. and P. L. Pingali. 1994. Pesticides, productivity, and dence, scanty though it may be, suggests they deserve. farmer health: A Philippino case study. Am J Agric Econ 76:418–430. Auld, B., K. M. Menz, and C. A. Tisdell. 1987. Weed Control Eco- nomics. Academic Press, London. Appendix A. Abbreviations and Beach, E. D. and G. A. Carlson. 1993. Hedonic analysis of herbicides: Do user safety and water quality matter? Am J Agric Acronyms Econ 75:612–623. Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth, III, J. M. Halloran, M. K. Hansen, and a. acre S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. ACIC Agricultural Conservation Innovation Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York. Center Bennett, A. and D. J. Pannell. 1998. Economic evaluation of a weed-activated sprayer for herbicide application to patchy weed BCA benefit-cost analysis populations. Aust J Agric Econ 42:389–408. Bt Bacillus thuringiensis Bouzaher, A., D. Archer, R. Cabe, A. Carriquiry, and J. F. Shogren. 1992. Effects of environmental policy on trade-offs in agri-chem- DSS decision support system ical management. J Environ Manage 36:69–80. EC environmental costs Bradley, E. B. and M. Duffy. 1982. The value of plant resistance to soybean cyst nematodes: A case study of forest soybeans. Staff EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report Number AGES 820929. Natural Resource Economic EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Pro- Divison, Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of Ag- gram riculture, Washington, D.C. Carlson, G. A. 1989. Externalities and research priorities in agri- IPM integrated pest management cultural pest control. Am J Agric Econ 71:453–457. USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture Caswell, M. F. and R. A. Shoemaker. 1993. Adoption of pest man- yr year agement strategies under varying environmental conditions. Economics in the Design, Assessment, Adoption, and Policy Analysis of Integrated Pest Management 207

Technical Bulletin Number 1827. Resources and Technology of America, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Ag- Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin. riculture, Washington, D.C. Kells, J. J. and J. R. Black. 1991. CORNHERB: Herbicide Op- Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1982. tions Program for Weed Control in Corn: An Integrated Deci- Integrated Pest Management. Report Number 93. Council for sion Support Computer Program. Version 2.0. Agricultural Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Kidder, D., B. Posner, and D. Miller. 1989. WEEDIR: Weed Con- Plant Protect Quart 2:13–20. trol Directory. AG–CS–2163. Version 3.0. Minnesota Exten- Crissman, C., J. M. Antle, and S. M. Capalbo. 1998. Economic, sion Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Environmental, and Health Tradeoffs in Agriculture: Pesticides King, R. P., D. W. Lybecker, A. Regmi, and S. M. Swinton. 1993. and the Sustainability of Andean Potato Production. Kluwer Bioeconomic models of crop production systems: Design, devel- Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. opment and use. Rev Agric Econ 15:393–405. Day, E. 1998. Integrated Pest Management Measurement Systems Lamp, W. O., G. R. Nielsen, and G. P. Dively. 1991. Insect pest- Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, June 12–13, 1998. Working Paper induced losses in alfalfa: Pattern in Maryland and implications CAE/SP 981. Center for Agriculture in the Environment, Amer- for management. J Econ Entomol 84: 610–618. ican Farmland Trust, Dekalb, Illinois. Landis, D. A. and D. B. Orr. 2002. Biological control: Approaches Drost, D. 1996. Barriers to adopting sustainable agricultural prac- and application. In E. B. Radcliffe and W. D. Hutchinson (eds.). tices. In J Extension 34, (27 September 2002) umn.edu> (27 September 2002) Duffy, M. 1999. Does planting GMO seed boost farmers’ profits? Leslie, A. R. and G. W. Cuperus (eds.). 1993. IPM and growers: Leopold Letter 11:1, 4–5. An evolution in thinking. Chap. 9. Successful Implementation Feder, G., R. E. Just, and D. Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of agri- of Integrated Pest Management for Agricultural Crops. Lewis cultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Econ Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Develop Cult Change 33:255–298. Lybecker, D. W., E. E. Schweizer, and P. Westra. 1994. WEED- Feinerman, E., J. A. Herriges, and D. Holtkamp. 1992. Crop in- CAM Manual. Department of Agricultural Economics, Colorado surance as a mechanism for reducing pesticides usage: A rep- State University, Ft. Collins. resentative farm analysis. Rev Agric Econ 14:169–186. McNamara, K. T., M. E. Wetzstein, and G. K. Douce. 1991. Fac- Ferguson, W. L. and J. Yee. 1995. A logit model of cotton produc- tors affecting peanut producer adoption of integrated pest man- er participation in professional scout programs. J Sustain Ag- agement. Rev Agric Econ 13:129–139. ric 5:87–96. Mortensen, D. A. and H. D. Coble. 1991. Two approaches to weed Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and C. Castaldo. 1998. The diffusion of IPM control decision-aid software. Weed Tech 5:445–451. techniques among fruit growers in the USDA. J Prod Agric Mullen, J. D., G. W. Norton, and D. W. Reaves. 1997. Economic 11:497–506. analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest manage- Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and W. D. McBride. 2000. Genetically engi- ment. J Agric Appl Econ 29:243–253. neered crops for pest management in U.S. Agriculture: Farm- Napit, K. B., G. W. Norton, R. F. Kazmieczak, Jr., and E. G. Ra- level effects. Agricultural Economics Report 786. Resource jotte. 1988. Economic impacts of extension integrated pest Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U. S. Depart- management programs in several states. J Econ Entomol ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 81:251–256. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., E. D. Beach, and W.-Y. Huang. 1994. The Norton, G. W. and J. Mullen. 1994. Economic Evaluation of Inte- adoption of integrated pest management technologies by vege- grated Pest Management Programs: A Literature Review. Vir- table growers in Florida, Michigan, and Texas. J Agric Appl ginia Cooperative Extension Publication 488–120. Virginia Econ 26:158–172. Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., S. Jans, and M. Smith. 1998. Issues in Ogg, A. C. W. 1999. Evolution of EPA programs and policies that economics of pesticide use in agriculture: A review of empiri- impact agriculture. Pp. 27–42. In F. Casey, A. Schmitz, S. cal evidence. Rev Agric Econ 20:462–488. Swinton, and D. Zilberman (eds.). Flexible Incentives for the Fernandez-Cornejo, J., C. Alexander, and R. E. Goodhue. 2002. Adoption of Environmental Technologies in Agriculture. Klu- Dynamic diffusion with disadoption: The case of crop biotech- wer Academic Publishers, Boston. nology in the USA. Agric Resource Econ Rev 31:112–126. Oriade, C. A., R. P. King, F. Forcella, and J. L. Gunsolus. 1996. A Griliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics bioeconomic analysis of site-specific management for weed con- of technological change. Econometrica 25:501–522. trol. Rev Agric Econ 18:523–535. Harper, C. R. and D. Zilberman. 1989. Pest externalities from Pedigo, L. P., S. H. Hutchins, and L. G. Higley. 1986. Economic agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 721:692–702. injury levels in theory and practice. Annu Rev Entomol 1:341– Harper J. K., M. E. Rister, J. W. Mjelde, B. M. Drees, and M. O. 361. Way. 1990. Factors influencing the adoption of insect manage- Reichelderfer, K. and M. K. Hinkle. 1989. The evolution of pesti- ment technology. Am J Agric Econ 72:997–1005. cide policy: Environmental interests and agriculture. Pp. 147– Higley, L. G. and W. K. Wintersteen. 1992. A novel approach to 177. In C. Kreamer (ed.). Political Economy of U.S. Agricul- environmental risk assessment of pesticides as a basis for in- ture: Challenges for the 1990s. National Center for Food and corporating environmental costs into economic injury level. Am Agricultural Policy, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C. Entomol 38:34–39. Renner, K. A. and J. R. Black. 1991. SOYHERB: A computer pro- Johnson, G. A., J. Cardina, and D. A. Mortensen. 1997. Site spe- gram for soybean herbicide decision making. Agron J 83:921– cific weed management: Current and Future Directions. Pp. 925. 131–147. In F. J. Pierce and E. J. Sadler (eds.). The State of Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. Free Press, Site-Specific Management for Agriculture. Agronomy Society New York. 208 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Smith, V. H. and B. K. Goodwin. 1996. Crop insurance, moral Project Publication Series Number 8. Papers presented at the hazard, and agricultural chemical use. Am J Agric Econ 78:428– First Workshop on Evaluation of IPM Programs, University 438. of Hannover, Germany, March 16–18, 1998. Stern, V. M., R. F. Smith, R. van Den Bosch, and K. S. Hagen. 1959. Weisz, R., S. Fleischer, and Z. Smilowitz. 1995. Site-specific in- The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81–101. tegrated pest management for high value crops: Sample units Swinton, S. M. and R. P. King. 1994. A bioeconomic model for weed for map generation using the Colorado potato beetle (Coloptera: management in corn and soybean. Agric Syst 44:313–335. Chrysomelidae) as a model system. J Econ Entomol 88:1069– Swinton, S. M. and S. S. Batie. 2001. FQPA: Pouring out (in?) the 1080. risk cup. Choices 16:14–17. Wiles, L. J., G. W. Oliver, A. C. York, H. J. Gold, and G. G. Wilk- Swinton, S. M., N. N. Owens, and E. O. van Ravenswaay. 1999. erson. 1992. The spatial distribution of broadleaf weeds in Health risk information to reduce water pollution. Pp. 263–271. North Carolina soybean (Glycine max) fields. Weed Sci 40:554– In F. Casey, A. Schmitz, S. Swinton, and D. Zilberman (eds.). 557. Flexible Incentives for the Adoption of Environmental Technol- Wiles, L. J., R. P. King E. E. Schweizer, D. W. Lybecker, and S. ogies in Agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. M. Swinton. 1996. GWM: General Weed Management Mod- Szmedra, P. I., M. E. Wetzstein, and R. W. McClendon. 1990. Eco- el. Agric Syst 50:355–376. nomic threshold under risk: A case study of soybean produc- Wilkerson, G. G., S. A. Modena, and H. D. Coble. 1991. HERB: tion. J Econ Entomol 83:641–646. Decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Taylor, C. R. and O. R. Burt. 1984. Near-optimal management Agron J 83:413–417. strategies for controlling whorled oats in spring wheat. Am J Zilberman, D. and K. Millock. 1997. Financial incentives and pes- Agric Econ 66:50–60. ticide use. Food Policy 22:133–144. Vandeman, A., J. Fernandez-Cornejo, S. Jans, and B.-H. Lin. 1994. Adoption of integrated pest management in U.S. agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 707. U.S. Resourc- Related Web Sites es and Technology Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. American Farmland Trust. 1998. Integrated pest management van Ravenswaay, E. O. and J. Blend. 1999. Using ecolabeling to measurement systems workshop, October 14, in agriculture. Pp. 119–138 In F. Casey, A. Schmitz, S. Swin- (13 February 2003) ton, and D. Zilberman (eds.). Flexible Incentives for the Adop- U.S. Department of Agriculture–Environmental Research Service. tion of Environmental Technologies in Agriculture. Kluwer 1998. Pest management. In Adoption of Agricultural Produc- Academic Publishers, Boston. tion Processes, (27 September 2002) ment at the IARCs. Document Number ICW/99/080C. Consulta- U.S. Department of Agriculture–Environmental Research Service. tive Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C. 2001. Pest management in U.S. agriculture, July 24, (27 September 2002) uation of IPM programs and methodologies. Pesticide Policy Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems 209

13 Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems

The definition of integrated pest management (IPM) tion workers’ becoming familiar with the intricacies has evolved continually since Stern and colleagues of IPM, and of growers’ recognizing the growing im- introduced the concept of “integrated control” in 1959. portance of IPM (Glass 1975). Early on, the impor- This concept, which at first included the most basic tance of the connections among educators, crop pro- idea of insect management and eventually came to tection personnel, and growers was understood include the ideas of integrated biological and chemi- clearly. cal, and ultimately cultural, biological, and physical control of insects, weeds, and crop pathogens, now A Brief Chronology: The 1970s refers to a very complex integrated system of manage- In early 1972, after discussions with personnel in ment. Conceptualizations of IPM education, adoption, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and in and evaluation have undergone parallel evolutions. other federal agencies about the need for possible As Swinton and Williams (1998) suggest, IPM can training programs for crop protection specialists, the be defined broadly as either input- or output-orient- Resident Instruction Committee on Organization and ed. Both categories have evolved to reflect how IPM Policy established the Committee on Plant Protec- is taught, delivered, adopted, and evaluated. Input- tion.1 The curriculum proposed differed from then- oriented definitions focus on pest management prac- current curricula. It was to take into account all plant tices, and specifically on biological, cultural, and pests and ideally would include internships in crop chemical practices. These definitions have gained management. Students in the proposed program popularity in programs promoting IPM adoption or would gain an understanding of all parts of the agro- using certification and labels to determine whether ecosystem, through the application of biological, growers are following prescribed practices. Output- chemical, and integrated systems that can contribute oriented definitions focus on IPM-use outcomes and to a sustainable environment (Browning 1972). primarily on decreased environmental risk and increased profit. Measurable in many different ways, Degree Training profitability has had a major influence on IPM adoption from the start. Impacts on profitability are eas- In late 1972, presumably the first formal workshop ier to measure than those on environment and health on IPM curriculum development and training needs (Swinton and Williams 1998). Lately, definitions of was held at the East-West Center in Hawaii (Obein IPM have addressed more than the two latter and Motooka 1972). Workshop participants from concerns. Asia, the Pacific, and the United States developed curricula and training programs. At the time, there was a common need in the United States and the Asia- Education, Past and Present Pacific region for more personnel to work with problems caused by pests, as interrelated instead of as Pest management personnel must be trained in a distinct issues. wide range of disciplines including ecology, toxicolo- By the late 1970s, however, IPM began to infiltrate gy, biology, entomology, nematology, weed science, and ultimately to permeate much of the curriculum, and plant pathology. As IPM implementation has virtually unnoticed and certainly undocumented. grown more and more widespread, researchers and Table 13.1 provides an overview of IPM education educators have seen the need to prepare students to during that decade. take responsibility for the development, teaching, and application of IPM concepts. As early as 1975, IPM 1The RICOP is an organization of deans and directors of U.S. professionals recognized the necessity of crop-protec- universities and colleges of agriculture.

209 210 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 13.1. IPM Education in the 1970s

University Curriculum Purpose

Ohio State University, 1972 B.S. in plant protection Integrate weed, insect, and plant disease control that would “prepare a person much more adequately for farming, pesticide application, and advising agricultural producers in all facets of plant protection. Opportunities for employment by industry in sales and technical services will [be] enhanced” (Bendixen 1972).

Cornell University, 1972 Ph.D. in pest management Ph.D. focus on training pest management researchers and teachers. B.S and M.S. planned B.S. and M.S. for pest control consultants with less emphasis on for the future research planned for the future (Glass 1972). Cornell realized that there was a need for nondegree training in IPM as well, especially for corn and apple production (even though IPM had not reached implementation in other areas of production). Pilot demonstration and training programs were planned for the future.

University of California, Berkeley B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. Positions should develop at universities to teach pest managers in pest management and for research. Should Extension expand, Ph.D. and M.S. people would be required in supervisory or research positions. Industry should replace the “pure salesperson” with trained pest management personnel at the undergraduate level (Huffaker 1972).

University of California, Davis B.S. in crop protection The basic need for trained IPM people in California was due to the state requirement that pest control operators be licensed, as well as to the lack of trained pest management personnel at the sales level.

California State Polytechnic College B.S. Pest Management (Thomas 1972).

California State University, Fresno B.S. Agricultural Sciences Option I: Plant Protection (Thomas 1972).

University of California, Riverside M.S. Pest Management (Thomas 1972).

Texas A&M University Interdisciplinary M.S. Insect IPM and interdisciplinary host plant resistance classes and in IPM (by 1978) weed ecology and insect biocontrol courses added later, combined with toxicology and field-oriented disease courses offered through the departments of entomology, plant pathology, and agronomy. This curriculum for the master’s degree in IPM remained essentially the same until now (Harris 1999. Personal communication).

Table 13.2. IPM nondegree training People Training

Administrators (directly or indirectly involved Series of informal short courses and workshops around the country in pest management) Researchers Short courses and workshops—multidisciplinary and pest problem-specific Teachers and Extension personnel Short courses and workshops to infuse teaching with IPM Field survey personnel On-the-job training, no formal training required other than interest in agriculture Pest control applicators and consultants Special nondegree programs Growers Use of pilot projects to provide understanding of IPM benefits Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems 211

Nondegree Training Integrated pest management has become a widely By the mid-1970s, nondegree training was recog- studied subject. Table 13.3 lists degree programs and nized as extremely important. Crop protection per- major areas of study related to IPM in the Northeast. sonnel needed to understand IPM concepts, philoso- Although very few universities offer IPM degrees as phies, and goals (Glass 1975). Table 13.2 indicates such, most degrees have an IPM component within the types of individuals and training involved at that the traditional departments of entomology, weed sci- time. ence, and plant pathology. There are, however, clearly defined IPM degrees. To compare curricula in the 1970s with those in the Moving Toward More Current Integrated Pest 1990s for a B.S. in IPM, see Table 13.4. Although the Management Education: titles of most courses have not changed since the The 1980s and the 1990s 1970s, course content most likely is quite different, for much has been learned in the fields of genetics, During the 1980s, universities became more and disease, and insect and weed management. more involved in IPM training. For example, in 1980, Integrated pest management now reaches more the University of California (UC) initiated the State- students as well, despite changes in the availability wide Integrated Pest Management Project, which is of IPM degrees. For example, all agronomy under- still in place. From the start, the project recognized graduates at North Carolina State University take an that synthetic pesticides provided benefits such as IPM course even though the university eliminated the improved productivity but could also lead to pest re- IPM degree program in 1994. North Carolina’s farm- sistance and to environmental concerns. Programs ers, agents, and agribusiness professionals essentially were designed to educate growers to limit their reli- come from this pool (Linker, M. 1999. Personal com- ance on pesticides and to consider a wide range of IPM munication). A similar situation exists at Purdue tactics. By the end of 1990, the project had funded University (Ontman, E. 1999. Personal communica- 222 IPM projects in 35 crops. Today, the UC publishes tion). As IPM has become more accepted and used, pest management guidelines for more than 30 com- IPM course materials have gone into broader use at modities and sells a series of IPM manuals combin- universities. ing the expertise of UC researchers and Extension specialists, designed for professional pest control advisors and others involved directly in pest manage- Delivery Systems ment. In addition to these publications, a web site provides much useful information, and Cooperative Much of the information about IPM is delivered by Extension and the university hold extensive grower papers, books, and magazines. But computers and the education meetings throughout the year. Internet are becoming more and more valuable for Also in 1980, researchers from the Washington IPM growers. Almost every land-grant university has State University, the University of Idaho, and Ore- an IPM web site with many links to other topics, or- gon State University established the Solution to En- ganizations, and government agencies. A recent sur- vironmental and Economic Problems (STEEP) re- vey of IPM growers in several regions showed, how- search program. Funded by the USDA, STEEP, a ever, that neither the computer nor the Internet is multidisciplinary program, focused on limiting soil used as widely as many had hoped it would be. In a erosion from agriculture by implementing sustainable small survey of IPM producers in several regions, 40% systems. The realization that tillage systems also used computers, but only 12.7% used decision-mak- affect soilborne pests led to expansion of the program’s ing software for pest control, whereas 31.1% used the scope by way of incorporating a comparatively inte- Internet to obtain information about the latest IPM grated approach taking into account both weed and technologies (Sorensen, Day, and Stewart 2000). disease control. Research by STEEP, with its hands- The Internet represents a powerful new informa- on field experiments, linked producers, agronomists, tion tool, but its potential is increasing rapidly. Sites and suppliers in the Pacific Northwest.2 are established and abandoned at remarkable rates. The value of the Internet to IPM as both an informa-

2 tion system and a decision aid is growing, and its fu- Although IPM education continued to evolve in the 1980s, in- ture usefulness will be limited primarily by web site formation about its evolution in that decade is difficult to obtain. A study of IPM education throughout the decades would be inter- developers’ imaginations (See Textbox 13.1 for a sam- esting but is beyond the scope of this chapter. pling of IPM web sites). 212 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 13.3. Degree programs and major areas of study related to IPM in the northeastern United States

University Department B.S. (major) M.S. Ph.D.

U. of Connecticut Plant science Crop science, turf science, Agronomy, horticulture Agronomy, horticulture horticulture U. of Delaware Entomology and General entomology, Entomology and Entomology and applied ecology plant protection applied ecology applied ecology U. of Maine Biological sciences Botany and plant pathology, Botany and plant pathology, ecology and environmental ecology and environmental science, entomology science, entomology Applied ecology and Sustainable agriculture Various areas of emphasis Various areas of emphasis environmental science U. of Maryland Biological resource Natural resource engineering management Agronomy Agronomy Crop science Crop science Entomology Entomology Entomology U. of Massachusetts Entomology Entomology Entomology Microbiology Microbiology Research fields: virology, Research fields: virology, pathogenic bacteriology, pathogenic bacteriology, plant pathology plant pathology Plant and soil science Floriculture, general studies, Plant and soil science Plant and soil science fruit production, turf management, ornamental horticulture, vegetable crops, sustainable agriculture U. of New Hampshire Plant biology B.S. Plant biology, Research fields: breeding Research fields: breeding environmental horticulture, and genetics, crop and genetics, crop B.A. plant biology management, genetic management, genetic engineering, pathology engineering, pathology Natural resources Wildlife management Environmental conservation Natural resources Microbiology Microbiology Microbiology Rutgers University, Botany/plant biology, New Brunswick plant science Entomology Entomology Entomology Entomology Cornell University Entomology Entomology Entomology Entomology Plant breeding Plant breeding Plant breeding Plant breeding and biometry Plant pathology Plant pathology Plant pathology Plant pathology Soil, crop and Weed science Weed science Weed science atmospheric science Fruit and vegetable Vegetable crops Vegetable crops science Plant science Plant breeding, plant pathology Penn State U. College-wide Ag sciences, agronomy, environmental and renewable resources economics, environmental resource management, forest science, horticulture, landscape contracting, turfgrass science Agronomy Agronomy Agronomy Agronomy Entomology Entomology Entomology Plant pathology Plant pathology Plant pathology U. of Rhode Island Plant science Plant science, golf and sports turf management Natural resources Environmental science and management, wildlife biology and management Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems 213

Adoption of Integrated Pest characteristics (Leslie and Cuperus 1993): 1. A greater proportion of IPM adopters than nona- Management dopters have at least a college education.

Rate and degree of IPM adoption have been focal 2. Integrated pest management producers are like- points since the mid 1970s, when implementation ly to be younger than 50 years (yr) of age, which began. Barriers to and factors affecting adoption are is below the average age—55 yr—of U.S. farmers. well documented (See Textbox 13.2). 3. Generally, adopters tend to have less farming experience than nonadopters do; and in most states a larger proportion of adopters than nonadopters Profile and Diffusion have less than 30 yr experience. According to diffusion theory, adopters of IPM prac- 4. Adopters tend to use Extension technical assis- tices go through certain stages, characterized as tance and publications on IPM technologies, one- awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption on-one meetings with Extension personnel, pro- (Nowak 1996). In the earlier stages, producers be- duction meetings, field demonstrations, and come aware that a specific IPM technique exists. neighbors as their sources of information. Adopt- According to Nowak (1996), this awareness comes ers tend to use the computer. from two distinct sources. Either the producer has a 5. The most persuasive arguments for IPM are im- problem and seeks a solution, or a third party calls proved pest control, increased crop quality and attention to an unrecognized problem. The producer yield, increased returns to management, im- then seeks information about the solution and evalu- proved protection of individual and public health, ates cost and use of this new technology, practice, or and decreased environmental damage. set of practices. The technical information can come from scientists, educators, neighboring producers, dealers, or other sources. According to a national Adoption Barriers evaluation of the USDA Extension IPM programs in To manage agricultural pests, IPM builds prima- 1986, IPM technology adopters share a number of rily on biological and ecological interventions. Cost

Table 13.4. Curricula, past and present

Ohio State University—1972 Mississippi State University—1990s B.S. in Plant Protection (Core Courses only) B.S. in IPM (Core Courses only)

Biology Plant biology Chemistry General chemistry Botany Experimental chemistry Organic chemistry Elementary organic chemistry Agricultural economics Introduction to agricultural economics Agricultural economics or accounting or computer science Survey of agriculture Math College algebra General zoology Principles of zoology Entomology Introduction to statistical inference Agronomy General entomology Weed control Soils Plant pathology Soils lab Genetics Introduction to weed science Ecology Introduction to plant pathology Microbiology Genetics I Insect control Weed biology and ecology Plant physiology Taxonomy of spermatophytes Pesticide regulation Field crop insects Environmental concerns Genetic plant physiology Animal science Herbicide technology Disease control Genetic plant ecology Application equipment Diseases in crops Food science and nutrition Plant disease management Cereal, forage, vegetable and tree fruit production Principles in insect pest management Engineering in agriculture 214 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Textbox 13.1. Institutions offering IPM degrees/training/information on the Internet (Source: E. Day, American Farmland Trust 2000)

University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/ The New York State Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program at Cornell University: http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu:80/ ipmnet/ny/; Global Crop Pest Identification and Information Services in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on the World Wide Web. http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/hortcrops/ University of Illinois, Masters in Integrated Pest Management. http://w3.aces.uiuc.edu/CropSci/grad/Options/ipm/faculty.html Iowa State University, Master of Science in Agronomy includes one summer course in Integrated Pest Management. http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/indices/1996/pesticideeducation.html (http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/) The Corn Rootworm Home Page: http://www.ent.iastate.edu/pest/rootworm/ Michigan State University: http://www.msue.msu.edu/ipm/about.htm, http://www.canr.msu.edu/ipm/index.htm, http://www.cips.msu.edu/ University of Minnesota: http://www.ent.agri.umn.edu/academics/classes/ipm/chapters/macrae.html, http://ipmworld.umn.edu/ Mississippi State University: Agricultural Pest Management and Integrated Crop Management. http://www.msstate.edu/dept/pss/public_html/intcropmgmt.html, http://WWW.msstate.edu/Dept/APM/info.html Montana State University Ð Bozeman, Department of Entomology, graduate degrees in Insect Pest Management/Economic Entomology: http://scarab.msu.montana.edu/, and University of Florida IPM: urban IPM classes through Montana University: http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~schoolipm/montana.htm Oregon State University, Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT)Program. http://ippc.orst.edu/pat/ Purdue Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue Pesticide Programs: Commercial Pesticide Applicator Training. http://www.btny.purdue.edu/PPP/PPP_CPAT.html Purdue University, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, BS is Crop Protection: http://www.btny.purdue.edu/, National Pest Management Materials Database: http://www.entm.purdue.edu/ipmdb.html Texas A&M University, Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management. BS in Integrated Resource Management: http://cnrit.tamu.edu/rlem/integrated.html University of Wisconsin, Madison, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Department of Agronomy, course offered in Integrated Weed Management: http://agronomy.wisc.edu/pages/undergrad/undergrad.html Washington State University, Pesticide Information Center On-Line: http://picol.cahe.wsu.edu/. Pesticide and Environmental Stewardship: http://pep.wsu.edu/ Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy, BS offered Ð Crop Consultant Option: http://www.ksu.edu/agronomy/ACADEMIC/cnsltopt.htm, Integrated Management of Arthropod Pests of Livestock and Poultry Ð Pesticide Guide for livestock pests, extension information by state. http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/pr_LP-pests/welcome. North Carolina State University, The Industry/University Center for Integrated Pest Management: Newsletter for IPM: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cipm/newsletter.html, Center for IPM: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cipm/cipm.html University of Arizona, College of Agriculture, Pesticide Information & Training Office. Pesticide and Training Information. http://Ag.Arizona.Edu/pito/apptrain/current.html Miner Institute, Educational Programs. http://www.whminer.com/EDU.htm Clemson University, Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT). http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/program/PAT.htm. USDA, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. Pesticide Applicator Training. Programs in every state. http://www.reeusda.gov/pas/programs/pat/pest.htm; On-line: http://pwd.reeusda.gov/pwd/view.asp Auburn University, Alabama, Alabama Pesticide Information: http://www.aces.edu/department/ipm/ University of Tennessee Extension, Entomology and Plant Pathology Section, Biological Control and IPM Sites (under construction). http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~extepp/eppipm.htm Clark Consulting International, agLINKS Index. Subject specific Internet directory which includes modeling, software, agronomy and crop specific information. http://www.agpr.com/consulting/aglinks.html Association of Applied Insect Ecologists, http://www.aaie.com/index.html Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems 215

Textbox 13.1 (continued).

Gempler, IPM Solutions Newsletter. A newsletter of IPM products and policy news for the IPM Professional. http://www.agriculture.com/contents/gempler/ipm/1997/v2i5/index.html Database of IPM Resources is an information retrieval/referral system and a compendium of customized directories of worldwide IPM information resources accessible through the Internet. http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/ The Natural Resources Institute, The Pest Management Department. IPMForum is a member of the international IPM Information Partnership: http://www.nri.org/IPMForum/main.htm American Crop Protection Association (ACPA): http://www.acpa.org/ The Certified Crop Adviser (CCA) program is a membership service of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA): http://www.agronomy.org/cca/ Pennsylvania State University, PA IPM Program. Includes training of IPM, newsletters, working groups, research and extension. http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/index.html Michigan Department of Agriculture, Integrated Pest Management Training Offered for Workers in Public Buildings: http://www.mda.state.mi.us/news/archive/1997/0897/081197.html Maryland Cooperative Extension Entomology Agricultural IPM. Agricultural Integrated Pest Management. Extension entomology faculty offer a variety of courses, workshops, and meetings: http://pest.umd.edu/training.html NIPMN. State Contacts in every state for Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide Impact Assessment and Pesticide Applicator Training: Illinois, Indiana. http://www.ent.iastate.edu/ipm/nipmn/statecontacts.html National IPM Network - Colorado State University. Agricultural Integrated Pest Management and Crop Production: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/csuipm.html CTN Educational Services, Inc. Continuing education classes for re-certification of pest control license holders under the Texas Structural Pest Control Board and the Texas Department of Agriculture: http://pestnetwork.com/ctn/about_ctn/about_ctn.html PestNetwork.com, provides an IPM pest control training video catalogue: http://ctnedu.com/video/videocatalog.html American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators. http://aapse.ext.vt.edu/aapse.html effectiveness and sustainability of IPM systems de- but unwilling, willing but unable, or unwilling and pend on their capacities to maintain pest populations unable. If unable, there generally is an obstacle pre- below economic thresholds across different and usu- venting growers from adopting (Nowak 1992): ally unpredictable situations. Systems must with- 1. Information may be lacking or scarce. stand a wide range of weather, pest pressure, and agronomic conditions and also must perform well over 2. Cost of obtaining information may be prohibitive. time by continually undermining the ability of pests 3. Complexity of the technology may be too great— to adapt to management practices. complexity of the technology is related inversely Ecological theory suggests and field experience to rate and degree of adoption. In recent years, confirms that IPM systems based on a variety of con- IPM technologies have become quite complex. trol tactics are especially resilient because redundan- 4. Technology may be too expensive—investment cy is built into the system. Where a single tactic is costs and returns on investment are primary con- relied on for control, growers are vulnerable when cerns of producers. pests adapt. Regardless of tactic used, however, certain combinations of weather, agronomic conditions, 5. Labor costs may be prohibitive. and pest adaptations are likely to lead to problems. 6. Planning horizon for the operation may be too The best way to ensure cost effective management small compared with the times associated with across conditions is to build redundant mechanisms learning costs and with recuperation of initial of control into production systems—in other words, investment costs. to build bio-intensive, prevention-based IPM systems (Coble, H. 1998). Producers choose not to adopt a 7. Availability and accessibility of support may be technology for two basic reasons: inability or unwill- limited (e.g., other producers may share success- ingness. As Nowak (1992) points out, these reasons es and failures, and chemical dealers may assume are not mutually exclusive. Producers may be able parts of the risk). 216 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Textbox 13.2. Case studies: Adoption barriers

A study conducted with Georgia peanut producers had a positive influence on adoption. Additionally, producers (McNamara et al. 1991) suggests that there are four primary who used pheromone traps generally had high levels of categories considered in decisions regarding adoption: education, were young, and valued information provided by producer component, management practices, farm structure, individual contacts and group meetings. Unlike other studies, and institutional factors. Variables from three of the four this study found that growers who used less irrigation on their categories, with the exception of farm structure, were cotton fields adopted more IPM practices than other producers significant. None of the variables in the farm structure category did. Furthermore, IPM belief measures (economic threshold were associated with whether a producer was going to adopt and perceived benefits of IPM) positively affected the number IPM technologies, although it was hypothesized that farm of IPM practices, whereas producer age, farm size, and most assets and farm debt should have a positive (assets) and information sources had no effect. negative (debt) relation to adoption. If a producer had many Kovach and Tette (1988) conducted a survey of the use assets, he/she was relatively likely to take on real or perceived of IPM by New York apple growers, IPM users, and nonusers. risks from adopting IPM. More than 80% of apple growers used IPM techniques. Thomas, Ladewig, and McIntosh (1990) conducted a Generally, IPM adopters were younger and had more education study among Texas cotton growers to determine the and less experience than nonadopters. Cornell Cooperative characteristics of IPM adopters. These researchers also defined Extension played a vital role in the provision of information specific categories to test their hypotheses that certain variables regarding pesticide use and pest management. Producers do or do not impede producer adoption decisions. Earlier who had adopted IPM used less pesticides than producers studies had determined that a major factor inhibiting adoption who had not. of IPM was efficacy—for example, the value of foregoing Fernandez-Cornejo, Beach, and Huang (1994) examined early crop planting to preserve beneficial insects. In addition, the adoption of IPM techniques by vegetable growers in many producers have seemed unwilling to change the Florida, Michigan, and Texas, using survey data from individual traditional plow-plant-spray-harvest routine and therefore vegetable growers. At the time of the study, the distribution have depended heavily on pesticides. For this study, farm of adopters varied widely, from 31% in Florida to 60% in and grower characteristics, information sources, technology Michigan. The results support the notion that adopters tend beliefs, and adopted technologies were taken into account. to be less risk averse than nonadopters. Farm size is significant, Producers, in fact, differed in their use of diffusion agents, confirming that owners of larger farms are more likely to i.e., in the way they used human resources, information, etc., adopt than owners of smaller farms. Furthermore, farm to facilitate IPM adoption. The percentage of irrigated land, operator and unpaid family labor variables were significant, the level of education, and the amount of gross farm sales showing that the quality as well as the quantity of labor affect were the most important variables studied. Gross farm sales, adoption decision and that managerial time is essential to the group meetings, private consultants, and IPM philosophy all decision-making process.

8. Managerial skills may be inadequate—IPM sys- cially when the technique is relatively inflexible. tems sometimes are designed for the above-aver- Conflict with IPM strategies also can arise when age manager. the goal is to produce a perfect, unblemished prod- 9. Control over adoption may not exist when deci- uct (Fernandez-Cornejo and Castaldo 1998; Ko- sions require a third party’s (a landlord’s, a vach and Tette 1988). bank’s, or a partner’s) approval. 3. Producers lack the opportunity to learn about the technology. Producers also may be unwilling to adopt an IPM 4. The IPM practice or technology is inappropriate technology or practice because of one of the following for the operation’s production system. reasons: 5. Perceived or real risk of negative outcome such 1. Information is difficult to access or irrelevant— as yield loss is heightened. information about other states, crops, or even regions may be perceived as unimportant. 6. Traditional production methods have credibility. 2. Conflict exists between current production goals Finally, if IPM advice does not take into account and new IPM technology. Too often, new tech- the biological variability within specific production niques do not fit into production systems, espe- units and instead advocates treating those units as Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems 217 homogeneous units for decision making, farmers may ent ways, the indicators calculate potential risk to the conclude that IPM is a “one-size-fits-all” approach environment. Some calculate a risk ratio, others a (Nowak, P. 1999. Personal communication). scoring table or ranks; yet others use a “fuzzy” expert Experts clearly need to continue building on what system. The indicators have different purposes and they have learned about IPM adoption. As produc- are designed for different levels of geography. Be- tion becomes more technologically sophisticated and cause they incorporate information on individual pes- information intensive, specialists will have to train ticide applications, they are used as decision aids for producers in increasingly complex technologies. farmers; for very fine-tuning producer risk management; for providing information on pesticide use in a specific crop for the purpose of green labeling; and, in- Measurement Systems creasingly, for aiding the decisions of policymakers. The latter use is especially evident in the European Consumer concern about pesticide residues in food Union. is widespread and has been in the media spotlight for Decision makers and farmers in the field need in- some time (Byrne et al 1991; van Ravenswaay and formation and tools that will allow them to choose the Wohl 1995). Although research regarding residues is “best” pest control practices with the fewest negative ongoing, negative responses are prevalent in Europe, effects on the environment and human health. Addi- the United States, and elsewhere; those responses tionally, farmers want to avoid pesticides that harm typify concerns about pesticide use that have result- beneficial parasites and predators of the target pest. ed in worldwide efforts to decrease the amount applied Environmental measurement system methodologies to crops. In response to these concerns, researchers include the following: have begun to investigate the health and environmen- 1. simulation of environmental effects; tal effects of pesticides, especially in light of the fact that pesticides have been detected in surface- and 2. sampling, monitoring, and tracking changes in bi- groundwater, in air and soil, and residually in food ological indicators (e.g., biodiversity, soil respira- (NAS 1993). Because economic thresholds and poten- tion rate, and pesticide level); tially decreased profitability are easier to measure, 3. surveys and qualitative research methods, includ- however, environmental impact models are a fairly ing observations and interviews regarding tabu- recent phenomenon (Higley and Peterson 1996). lation results; and Starting with the 1992 National Integrated Pest Management Forum (Sorensen 1994) and extending 4. indexing or ranking of the extent and severity of beyond the Third National IPM Symposium in 1996 chemical effects on one or more environmental in- (Lynch, Greene, and Kramer-LeBlanc 1996), the need dicators. to assess the effects of IPM programs has been a dom- Most environmental indicators were developed inant theme. Although consensus has been reached (and still are in the process of being refined) in Eu- regarding the need for improved documentation, none rope. These efforts recently were accelerated by an has been reached regarding appropriate assessment appeal from the European Commission to all Euro- methods. But given the federal 75% IPM goal, the pean member states to develop, in light of the Gener- concomitant goal of decreasing reliance on high-risk al Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Common Ag- pesticides (as outlined in the Food Quality Protection ricultural Policy, and the European Agenda 2000 Act) and the demand for greater accountability for (Reus et al. 1999), environmental indicators as pos- public expenditures (the Government Performance sible decision-making tools. A key indicator system and Results Act), measurement systems are here to developed by the Wisconsin potato IPM collaboration stay. Indeed, the USDA IPM Initiative and National is used in tracking potato pesticide use and risks as- IPM Implementation Plan require integration of associated with potato production in that state (Ben- sessment activities in future IPM funding proposals brook et al. 2002). Table 13.5 summarizes the envi- (Benbrook et al. 1996; Jacobsen 1996). ronmental indicator models currently available for testing with field data. These indicators primarily take into account the Environmental Indicator Models number of applications, label information, and kilo- Sixteen environmental indicator model, or mea- grams of active ingredient. A complete set of environ- surement, systems have been developed by both U.S. mental and social parameters in the assessment of and international researchers (Table 13.5). In differ- consequences of pesticide use should, ideally, include 218 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Table 13.5. Environmental indicator models

Name of indicator Organization Intended use Measurements Result

Environmental Impact Kovach et al., U.S. Tool for farmers ¥ Groundwater and aquatic effects Rating system Quotient (EIQ) ¥ Terrestrial effects Stemilt Growers Integrated Fruit packing company Tool for farmers ¥ Consumer and farm worker safety Combines ratings Fruit Production Responsible in Washington State, ¥ Pesticide persistence (target pest specific) Choice Point Summary U.S. ¥ Surface- and groundwater ¥ Agricultural sustainability ¥ Economic feasibility PestDecide¨ New South Wales, Tool for farmers ¥ Application activity Weight-based rating system Australia ¥ Timing, site of application (based on EIQ) ¥ Persistence, efficacy, cost Environmental Yardstick Centre for Agriculture Tool for farmers ¥ Risk to water organisms Risk-based ratio between for Pesticides (EYP) and Environment, ¥ Risk of groundwater contamination concentration and toxicity The Netherlands ¥ Risk to soil organisms Consumers Union’s Consumers Union, Advice to ¥ Acute mammalian toxicity Weight-based risk index Agricultural Pesticide U.S. policymakers ¥ Chronic mammalian toxicity Risk Index ¥ Ecotoxicity ¥ Impacts on biointensive IPM systems The Hasse Diagram (HD) Danish Institute of Advice to Soil, surface, and groundwater Relative and total ranking Agricultural Sciences policymakers Ecotoxicological effects UC Berkeley Environmental University of California, Advice to ¥ 12 indicators, three categories Weight-based ranking system Health Policy Program U.S. policymakers of impact on human health, Ranking System ecosystems, natural resources USDA ERS Chronic and USDA, Economic Advice to ¥ Acute and chronic toxicity based Weight-based potential Acute Risk Indicators Research Service, policymakers on “toxicity/persistence units.” risk indicator of Pesticide Use U.S. SYNOPS_2 Institute of Technology Advice to ¥ Surface water, soil Ratio between concentration Assessment in Plant policymakers ¥ Time and toxicity and translated Protection (BBA), ¥ Ecotoxicological effects on aquatic into relative “risk graphs” Germany and soil organisms Environmental Performance Univ. Hertfordshire Tool for farmers ¥ Potential hazard for humans, wildlife, Software-based environmental Indicator for Pesticides Dept. of bees, and aquatic organisms; performance assessment (p-EMA) Environmental potential emission to air; surface and Sciences, UK groundwater; and bioaccumulation Pesticide Environmental National Institute of Tool for farmers ¥ Groundwater Fuzzy expert system Impact Indicator (Ipest) Agricultural Research ¥ Surface water (INRA), France ¥ Air ¥ Dose rate Environmental Potential Università Cattolica Tool for farmers ¥ Groundwater Ratio between concentration Risk Indicator for Pesticides del Sacro Cuore, ¥ Surface water and toxicity, translated into (EPRIP) Inst. of Environ. and Ag. ¥ Soil score and total score Chemistry, Italy ¥ Air System for Predicting the Vet. and Agrochemical Advice to ¥ Groundwater Individual and total score Environmental Impact Research Centre, policymakers ¥ Surface water of Pesticides (SyPEP) Belgium CHEMS-1: Chemical Hazard University of Advice to ¥ Seven toxicological (and Scoring system Evaluation for Management Tennessee policymakers ecotoxicological) endpoints and Strategies four indicators of exposure potential Pesticide Environmental Swedish University of Tool for farmers ¥ Mobility data (DT50, Koc, etc.) Scoring system, individual Risk Indicator (PERI) Agricultural Sciences, toxicity data (soil organisms, water scores, and total score Sweden organisms, bees, bioaccumulation) Pesticide Risk Assessment Collaboration of Tool for farmers ¥ Multiattribute toxicity factors Pesticide risk assessment Tool Wisconsin Potato and and advice to calculated to reflect each pesticide’s system Vegetable Growers policymakers acute and chronic toxicity, and Assoc., Univ. of Wisc., compatibility with biointensive and World Wildlife Fund IPM programs Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems 219 these variables: Union, Yonkers, New York. 272 pp. Benbrook, C. M., D. L. Sexson, J. A. Wyman, W. R. Stevenson, S. 1. health of farm workers, consumers, and the gen- Lynch, J. Wallendal, S. Diercks, R. Van Haren, and C. A. Gra- eral public (including vulnerable subpopulations nadino. 2002. Developing a pesticide risk assessment tool to such as the elderly and children); monitor progress in reducing reliance on high-risk pesticides. Amer J Potato Research 79:183–200. 2. lethal and sublethal effects on other nontarget Bendixen, L. E. 1972. A curriculum for plant protection at the Ohio biota; State University. Workshop on Pest Management. Curriculum Development and Training Needs, the East-West Center and the 3. direct and indirect effects on natural- and agro- College of Tropical Agriculture, University of Hawaii, Honolu- ecosystems, including effects on habitat and food lu, December 4 to 7, 1972. resources; Browning, C. B. 1972. Pest management and plant production. Workshop on Pest Management. Curriculum Development and 4. parameters to calculate pollution of air, soil, and Training Needs, the East-West Center and the College of Trop- water; and ical Agriculture, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, December 4 to 7, 1972. 5. costs and benefits to producers and society for de- Byrne, P., J. Gempsaw, M. Conrado, II, and U. Toensmeyer. 1991. creasing pesticide use. An evaluation of consumer pesticide residue concerns and risk information sources. South J Agric Econ 23:164–174. Most environmental indicator models have not yet Coble, H. 1998. A new tool for measuring the resilience of IPM been tested with field data. Pesticide application, tim- systems: The PAMS Diversity Index. IPM Measurement Sys- ing, location, and method are the main components tems Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, June 12 to 13, 1998. of these models, and unless producers are willing to Fernandez-Cornejo, J., E. D. Beach, and W.-Y. Huang. 1994. The cooperate, researchers will have a difficult time work- adoption of IPM techniques by vegetable growers. J Agric Appl Econ 26:158–172. ing with actual data to test the proposed systems and Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and C. Castaldo. 1998. The diffusion of IPM to determine how accurately they estimate effects on techniques among fruit growers in the USDA. J Prod Agric the environment. 11:497–506. In conclusion, with IPM evolving toward more com- Glass, E. H. 1975. Integrated Pest Management: Rationale, Po- plex integrated systems approaches, changes will con- tential, Needs and Implementation. Special Publication. En- tomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland. 141 pp. tinue to occur in the education of IPM practitioners, Higley, L. G. and R. K. D. Peterson. 1996. Environmental risk the delivery of information to producers, and the eval- and pest management. In E. B. Radcliffe and W. D. Hutchison uation of effects. Because of these complexities, ad- (eds.). Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook. Regents of the Univer- ditional barriers to adoption are likely to arise. The sity of Minnesota, St. Paul. speed at which technologies are being introduced also Jacobsen, B. 1996. USDA Integrated Pest Management Initiative. In E. B. Radcliffe and W. D. Hutchison (eds.). Radcliffe's IPM has a bearing on the agricultural community’s abili- World Textbook. Regents of the University of Minnesota, St. ty to provide necessary training and information to Paul. incorporate new tools into existing IPM systems. Kovach, J. and J. P. Tette. 1988. A survey of the use of IPM by Because IPM is first and foremost a philosophy of pest New York apple producers. Agric Ecosyst Environ 20:101–108. management, however, the concept certainly is suffi- Leslie, A. R. and G. W. Cuperus (eds.). 1993. IPM and growers: An evolution in thinking. Successful Implementation of Inte- ciently resilient to survive these challenges. grated Pest Management for Agricultural Crops. Lewis Publish- ers, Boca Raton, Florida. Appendix A. Abbreviations and Lynch, S., C. Greene, and C. Kramer-LeBlanc (eds.). 1996. Pro- ceedings of the Third National IPM Symposium/Workshop: Acronyms Broadening Support for Twenty-First Century IPM. Miscella- neous Publication Number 1542. Natural Resources and En- IPM integrated pest management vironment Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. STEEP Solution to Environmental and Econom- McNamara, K. T., M. E. Wetzstein, and G. K. Douce. 1991. Fac- ic Problems tors affecting peanut producer adoption of integrated pest man- UC University of California agement. Rev Agric Econ 13:129–139. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1993. Pesticides in the Di- USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture ets of Infants and Children. Committee on Pesticides in the yr year Diets of Infants and Children. National Academy Press, Na- tional Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Wash- ington, D.C. Literature Cited Nowak, P. 1992. Why farmers adopt production technology. J Soil Water Conserv 47:14–16. Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth, J. Halloran, M. Hansen, and S. Mar- Nowak, P. 1996. Practical considerations in assessing barriers to quardt. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. Consumers IPM adoption. Pp. 93–115. In S. Lynch, C. Green, and C. Kram- er-LeBlanc (eds.). Proceedings of the Third National IPM Sym- 220 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

posium/Workshop: Broadening Support for Twenty-First Cen- when risks are ambiguous. Pp. 219–256. In J. A. Caswell (ed.). tury IPM. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1542. Economic Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition. Westview Press Incorpo- Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, rated, Boulder, Colorado. D.C. Obein, S. R. and P. S. Motooka (eds.). 1972. Workshop on Pest References for Labeling and Management: Curriculum Development and Training Needs. The East-West Center and University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Regulation December 4 to 7, 1972. Barham, E. 1997. What’s in a name? Eco-Labeling in the global Reus, J., P. Leendertse, C. Bookstaller, I. Fromsgaard, V. Gutsche, food system. Joint Meetings of the Agriculture, Food, and Hu- K. Lewis, C. Nielsson, L. Pussemier, T. Trevisan, H. ven der man Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food Werf, F. Alfarroba, S. Blümel, J. Isart, D. McGrath, and T. Sep- and Society, Madison, Wisconsin, June 5 to 8, 1997. pälä (eds.). 1999. Concerted Action for Pesticide Environmen- Browner, C. M., R. Rominger, and D. L. Kessler. September 22, tal Risk Indicator Project, Centre for Agriculture and Environ- 1993. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Department ment, Utrecht, The Netherlands, March 18 to 20, 1999. Operations and Nutrition and the Committee on Agriculture. Sorensen, A. A. 1994. Proceedings of the National Integrated Pest U. S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Management Forum. Center for Agriculture in the Environ- Bruno, K. 1992. The Greenpeace Book of Greenwash. Greenpeace ment, American Farmland Trust, DeKalb, Illinois. International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Sorensen, A. A., E. Day, and P. Stewart. 2000. Factors affecting California Clean Growers. 1998. Homepage, (30 September 2002) and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Proceedings of the International Con- Core Values. 2002. Homepage, (30 ference on Emerging Technologies in IPM: Concepts, Research, September 2002) and Implementation. APS Press, American Phytopathological Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and S. Jans. 1999. Pest management in Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. U.S. agriculture, August, (30 September 2002) The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81–101. The Food Alliance. 2001. The Food Alliance’s seal of approval, Swinton, S. M. and M. B. Williams. 1998. Assessing the economic (30 September impacts of integrated pest management: Lessons from the past, 2002) directions for the future. Staff Paper Number 92–12. Depart- New York State Integrated Pest Management Program. 2002. ment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, Homepage, September 25, East Lansing. (30 September 2002) Thomas, J. K., H. Ladewig, and W. A. McIntosh. 1990. The adop- Rainforest Alliance. 2002. Conservation programs, (30 September 2002) van Ravenswaay, E. O. and J. Wohl. 1995. Using contingent valu- Stemilt Growers. 2002. Homepage, (30 September 2002) Future Challenges and Directions 221

14 Future Challenges and Directions

This report by the Council for Agricultural Science specific. Insofar as history has shown that there is and Technology (CAST) addresses advances in inte- no “silver bullet” for crop or IPM management (Kogan grated pest management (IPM) that have occurred 1998), management options must be deployed with since publication of the first CAST IPM report (1982), great care (Kennedy 2000). In 1996, the National which focused on pesticide reduction. Recent advanc- Research Council (NRC) published a call for the de- es include more-efficient pest management tools and velopment of ecologically based pest management; strategies, new technologies, innovative pest manage- this, however, has been a long-term IPM goal for de- ment systems, more sustainable crop/animal produc- cades (Kogan 1998; Rabb and Guthrie 1970). In a re- tion systems, and an expanded public appreciation of cent book, Liebman, Mohler, and Staver (2001) simi- the utility of IPM (Cavigelli et al. 2000; Kennedy and larly emphasized the potential for ecology-based weed Sutton 2000; Madden 1992). Although certain IPM management. tactics have been adopted widely (that is, on more As farming and industrial organizations grow, so than 70% of crop acres), the use of biointensive IPM does the need for interdisciplinary and interorgani- remains limited (on 18% of crop acres) (GAO 2001). zational collaboration. Especially vexing are the in- Changing resources, increasing pest diversity, evolv- creasing diversity of pest species, including introduced ing government policy, and the ongoing need for more taxa and new strains, and the complexity of IPM and widespread adoption of comprehensive IPM all affect crop production systems. These systems are becom- IPM development and implementation while offering ing more technology and information intensive, and many exciting but often significant challenges. the importance of information transfer and commu- Extensive discussions of the goals of IPM and the nication is increasing. Private organizations, with work that remains unfinished have been published in their breadth of resources—pesticides, crop varieties, recent years. Key agents of change in the ever-evolv- grower information—are assuming considerable re- ing agricultural production systems include econom- sponsibility for information transfer and development ic factors, market opportunities, government polices of crop solutions (whole production packages) and and regulations, technological advances (including IPM/integrated crop management (ICM) systems those related to IPM), exotic-pest introductions, and (Carroll 2000). How will these developments affect pest control crises (GAO 2001; Kennedy 2000; Sorens- traditional university/Extension information transfer en, Day, and Stewart 2000). In the United States, a and training for IPM practitioners and others? Will dramatic example of change is the increasing num- a more clearly defined collaboration between private ber of acres of biotechnology crops grown, which and public IPM/ICM sectors evolve? Recently devel- amounted to more than 75 million acres (a.) in 2000 oped long-distance teaching/learning technologies as compared with 4 million a. in 1996 (CAST 2001). also are coming to the forefront in IPM and in most Integration of transgenic crops with cost-effective and information transfer systems. logistically compatible IPM practices in sustainable General constraints on IPM adoption have been cropping systems poses many challenges. Incorpora- categorized as technical, educational, institutional, tion of transgenic crops often results in increases in and, especially, interorganizational, interpersonal, in- secondary pests and a narrowing of germplasm use, terdisciplinary, and financial (GAO 2001; Goodell and thus decreasing the robustness of an IPM program in Zalom 2000). Examples of specific challenges faced cropping systems (Jacobsen 2000). This trade-off by IPM practitioners include decreased funding; un- highlights the need for increased systems research in favorable public perceptions of IPM and pesticides; evolving farming systems (Merrigan 2000). Such re- the negative impact of the Food Quality Protection Act search also should address the need for multiple tac- (FQPA) and other government polices on IPM; the tics and strategies for managing an increasingly com- limited commitment to IPM by environmental and plex and changing array of pests that is usually site consumer groups; the increasing need for coordination

221 222 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies among federal, state, and private sectors in IPM re- their acceptance or lack of acceptance by the public, search planning and implementation; and the grow- and their ultimate beneficiaries. ing role of marketplace issues such as IPM risk insur- The NRC (2000) has stated that deployment of pest- ance (Goodell and Zalom 2000; Merrigan 2000). protected plants (i.e., plants resistant to pests) is not Specific research and Extension IPM needs for vari- without problems. The council specified toxicity, al- ous crops and animals also have been enumerated lergenicity, effects of gene flow, development of resis- (Geden and Hogsette 2001; Kennedy and Sutton tant pests, and effects on nontarget species as con- 2000). Government policy and regulation continue to cerns for both conventional and transgenic influence IPM by means as varied as local and state pest-protected plants. And the council cited as anoth- governments to presidential executive orders and er area of concern pleiotropic effects, or unanticipat- national farm bills. While the national and interna- ed effects on plant physiology. The NRC has provid- tional phase-out of methyl bromide is ongoing, the ed recommendations for these major areas of concern, FQPA will eliminate many other pesticides current- which are beyond the scope of this CAST report. But ly in use. Crop insurance for IPM and IPM labeling even with such constraints in place, the importance may be on the horizon. Finally, the 2002 Farm Bill of host resistance to pests will continue to be central presents additional opportunities and challenges for for IPM on most major crops. IPM. That bill provided the National Resources Con- Three key steps in developing pest resistance in servation Services with funds for use in IPM imple- crops are (1) identification of a source of resistance, mentation. The source of these funds is the Environ- (2) transfer from donor source to recipient plant, and mental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); decisions (3) evaluation of the resulting plant. At each of these regarding their use will be made at the state level steps, constraints exist, regardless of breeding meth- (Coble, H. 2002. Personal communication; Kelley od. Identification of useful donors can pose unique 2002; USDA–RMA 2003). difficulties. The utility of a donor gene is judged only after genetic transfer succeeds. With genetic engineering, the genes responsible for resistance must be Key Issues for the Future identified, isolated, and inserted into a plant transformation deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) vector that The aforementioned IPM-related issues, and many may contain genes providing a marker for their pres- others, must be considered if recent and ongoing ad- ence and allow efficient integration of alien genes. vances in technology are to influence the general di- With traditional methods, techniques for identifying rection of IPM and to enhance its implementation. resistant phenotypes must be developed and used to Because detailed discussions of various facets of IPM evaluate large populations of hybrids. Understanding advances were treated in earlier chapters, the remain- of the mechanisms or causes of resistance, the man- der of this concluding chapter focuses on seven prima- ner of genetic translation into resistance phenotypes, ry areas: gene technology constraints; genetic diver- the features of multifaceted interactions between sity and pest adaptability; ecologically based IPM; pests and hosts, and the complexity of resistance phe- systems approaches; evolving pools of trainers and notypes might alleviate many concerns. Additional speed of technology transfer; government policy and basic problems include potential narrowing of the regulations; and assessments of IPM. germplasm base used in crop production, for such narrowing may enhance vulnerability to new pests, as well as unexpected effects on nontarget organisms, Gene Technology Constraints pest resistance development/management, and grow- As described in this report, genetic resistance to er/consumer acceptability. pests has been and will continue to be an important Theoretically, any gene present in any organism, feature of IPM. Pest-resistant crops developed by or the molecular alteration or creation of any gene, is means of conventional breeding and genetic engineer- a potential resource of genetic variability for the ge- ing have helped decrease pesticide use. Future op- netic engineer. In contrast, breeders using only con- portunities are great, and crops may be modified for ventional methods are limited to those genes present increased compatibility with existing and future IPM in the crop species and in relatives closely related to systems. Nevertheless, key unresolved issues include the crop. The availability of a wide array of genetic the extent to which genetically engineered crops will material raises exciting possibilities of novel crops. Si- be used in production systems, the rate at which they multaneously, this array of genetic possibilities rais- will be adopted, their compatibility with IPM systems, es fears of crops with unanticipated consequences Future Challenges and Directions 223 such as the devastation of ecosystems, or of the detri- in the early stages of development. Quantitative re- mental effects of long-term production or consumption sistance traits can be difficult to use with traditional (University of Guelph 2002). The challenge to the breeding approaches, especially if they are present IPM community is to evaluate critically the use of only in wild relatives or in unadapted donor species. pest-protected plants and to envision creative solu- Quantitative traits usually are more difficult to eval- tions achievable through their development and uate or to score, and they require re-evaluation meth- deployment. ods of greater precision than those for qualitative The legal and ethical environments in which genet- traits. The greater the number of alien genes trans- ically engineered crops are created differ from those ferred, the more likely the desirable characteristics in which conventional varieties are created. For ex- will diminish performance; thus, additional breeding ample, the intellectual property underlying a geneti- improvement steps are required. At times, as a re- cally engineered crop has been defined precisely and sult of undesirable linkages and other factors, eco- therefore is protected and defended legally with great- nomic traits do not perform as expected when recover facility than the intellectual property underlying ered in combination with resistance. the improvement of conventionally bred crops. The Implicit in IPM practice is the goal of minimizing intellectual property of the genetic engineer is per- the potentially undesirable consequences of deploy- ceived as more interchangeable and, therefore, as ing a pest control tactic. Decreased predator popula- more attractive for commercialization by the private tions and enhanced pesticide resistance in target sector. For conventionally bred varieties, resistance pests are just two examples of the potentially unde- characterization, gene pool enrichment and, often, sirable consequences of pesticide use that IPM prac- variety development have occurred in the public sec- titioners seek to avoid. At this time, however, scien- tor, with the primary goal of improving the profitabil- tists are unable to predict with reliability the ity and sustainability of farmers. Because the IPM consequences of deployment. A report by the NRC community places a high priority on improving farmer (2000) confirms that genetic traits conferring pest sustainability through biological or ecological means, resistance on plants created either by conventional the differences in value systems between the public breeding or by transgenic methods can be toxic to sector and the private sector need to be bridged so that humans, cause allergic reaction, and affect nontarget pest-protected plants can be more suitable for IPM species. All these constraints must be dealt with systems. Moreover, any genetic advances must ad- appropriately. dress resistance management (RM), avoid further Pest populations also may be selected or may de- narrowing of the gene pool, and convince consumers velop resistance to the genes protecting crops from of the desirability of the concept. pests. These potential undesirable consequences of Constraints to genetically engineered crop variet- resistance deployment must be considered and mini- ies range from the high cost of developing and gain- mized or eliminated in the development and the de- ing regulatory approval for crops with biotechnology ployment of pest-resistant plants. Such concerns are traits to new management practices aimed at mini- important and should be considered before recommen- mizing their potentially negative effects on the envi- dation of management practices for biotechnology ronment and on nontarget organisms. The cost of crops with enhanced pest resistance traits (Fitt and product development and regulatory approval can Wilson 2000). limit the number of resistant crops commercialized. If transgenes are to succeed, several special re- On the other hand, engineered pest resistance has quirements must be addressed. A biointensive IPM several advantages. In biotechnology crops, a small approach—including industry support, monitoring, amount of DNA containing the gene or genes respon- rotations, carefully planned pesticide applications, sible for the desirable trait is introduced and acts as and a truly integrated production/management sys- single dominant traits segregating in a Mendelian tem—is essential for long-term sustainability of these fashion (cf NRC 2000). Because of the ease of identi- new tools (Ferro 2000; Kennedy and Sutton 2000). fying and tracking transgenic progeny in a breeding There is evidence for the importance of integrated program, an engineered trait can be introduced into tactics in the cotton system. For example, the use of several elite varieties of crops fairly quickly. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton has resulted at Resistance traits that are quantitative, inherited, times in decreased scouting; as a result, control of or controlled by more than a single gene present ad- secondary pests has suffered. The problems with ditional constraints. Regarding transgenic approach- transgenic single-tactic approaches to pest manage- es, the ability to transfer quantitative traits remains ment are no different from those within a single-pes- 224 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies ticide system. Multiple-tactic systems must be re- This phenomenon is being fostered by increasing high- tained if sustainability is to be achieved. Manage- speed international trade and may be accentuated by ment systems also should encompass biodiversity and global warming. richness (of species/genetic variation) and strategies/ The genetic diversity within most crop pests con- tactics to address potential new pest problems. tinues to limit the utility of plant varieties developed Although conventional and molecular crop genet- with resistance to one or more pests. Thus, the dura- ics have led to much progress in the production of bility of such varieties can be maximized only by a major crops and the control of related pests, minor combination of management practices, including ro- crops continue to receive limited attention. It is to be tations with nonhosts and susceptible varieties (See hoped that future genetic products will bring bene- Chapter 4). Certain pests have alternative hosts or fits, also. Regardless of crop, grower and societal ac- may move with air currents, both factors that must ceptance are crucial to the success of new crop vari- be considered in developing management strategies eties and gene products—conventional as well as to protect the usefulness of a pest resistance gene. genetically engineered. Challenges and difficulties Although genetically engineered resistant varieties encountered with Bt corn (Starlink) illuminated the offer new IPM tools, they, too, often will be overcome magnitude of the problems that can surface as a re- by pest adaptation, especially when used improperly. sult of hastily implemented new technologies. Bacil- Many pesticides, like resistant crop varieties, are lus thuringiensis corn received federal approval for rendered ineffective by the target pest’s ability to use as animal feed only but was found in human foods, adapt genetically. As discussed in detail in Chapter resulting in huge economic and product losses and, 2, hundreds of species of insects, pathogens, and perhaps more important, diminished public trust in weeds have developed resistance to pesticides. At regulatory safeguards. Whereas the debate regard- times, pests may develop cross-resistance, whereby ing the merits of biotechnology continues, an exten- the pest becomes resistant to two or more pesticides sive recent case study offered very encouraging re- without having been exposed to all chemicals in- sults. For example, varieties of six crops (soybean, volved. Somewhat similar to IPM programs using and corn, cotton, papaya, squash, and canola) developed managing host resistance, pesticide RM programs are via biotechnology yielded some four billion pounds of necessary to ensure the durability of many pesticides. additional food and fiber on the same acreage, result- Resistance management strategies/tactics for this ed in increased farm income of $1.5 billion, and de- purpose range from rotating pesticides with different creased pesticide volume by 46 million pounds (NC- modes of action to developing models to assist in de- FAP 2002). signing RM programs. Because of the needs to cus- tomize RM programs and to evaluate pest populations, extensive information is required and must be Genetic Diversity and Pest Adaptability modified continually to fit the current pest situation. Animal and crop pests are endowed with a vast ge- Crucial for this purpose are data regarding how best netic diversity and capacity to adapt to almost limit- to minimize selection pressure for resistance within less habitats. Their ecological elasticity often is ex- the pest while maximizing long-term benefits of avail- tended by (1) their ability to reproduce vegetatively able pesticides and genetically modified organisms and by means of crossfertilization and (2) their active (GMOs). or passive capacity to travel over very great distanc- Highly adaptable invasive pests are moving into all es. Thus, typical pest population dynamics involve habitats, including bodies of water, parks, forests, great change over time and space and frequently pose pastures, rangelands, croplands, and other natural challenges to IPM scientists and practitioners. Major areas (See Chapter 2). Thousands of nonnative spe- IPM problems result in the adaptation to given nich- cies of weeds, insects, and pathogens from many coun- es, through mutation and/or natural selection, of pest tries have been introduced into the United States. population dynamics. These adaptations may allow The annual cost of damage due to pest species is esti- pests to attack specially bred resistant crop cultivars mated at more than $100 billion. For example, the or to overcome the effects of pesticides by becoming imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) is now a perma- tolerant of or resistant to given compounds (See Chap- nent resident of several states and causes damage to ter 2). The capacity of pests to survive harsh condi- livestock, wildlife, and public health—damage tions, including long-distance transport, has allowed amounting to more than $2 billion/year (yr). The In- them to invade agricultural and natural ecosystems. vasive Species Council established in 1999 by a pres- Future Challenges and Directions 225 idential executive order to address this enormous disciplinary pest complex-based and agroecological- problem will require significant resources. ly based system knowledge has hardly begun. The goals of EBMP should be viewed as long-term strategic goals that can be achieved only incrementally by Ecologically Based Integrated Pest members of the pest disciplines working with farm- Management ers and encouraging their movement along the IPM As has been discussed, in 1996 the National Acad- continuum toward a greater degree of EBMP. Only emy of Sciences (NAS) published the book Ecologically then will the necessary public/private financial and Based Pest Management—New Solutions for a New regulatory support be developed. Lack of success by Century (NRC 1996). Prepared at the request of the the Clinton Administration in achieving the relatively U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. modest funding increases for the USDA/EPA IPM Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the initiative reflected the challenges facing proposals for Board on Agriculture, this book focused on the need increased federal funding for research and Extension for more sustainable pest management strategies and education. In addition to developing increased fund- emphasized that they should be based on ecological ing, members of the pest disciplines, economists, ecol- principles. The clear thesis of this publication and of ogists, soil and crop scientists, sociologists, public in- other recent publications (e.g., Benbrook et al. 1996; terest groups, and, most important, farmers will have Liebman, Mohler, and Staver 2001) was to shift the to develop new dialogues and blueprints for interdis- existing IPM paradigm from a focus on pest manage- ciplinary funding. As farmers move along the IPM ment relying primarily on pesticide management to continuum, they develop confidence in IPM tactics a systems approach relying primarily on biological and techniques and become leaders in calling for new knowledge of pests and their interactions with crops. research and technology transfer programs. Clear In biointensive IPM systems, knowledge of the man- examples are found with apple, potato, and cotton aged ecosystem and its natural processes that sup- growers, considered by many the most advanced pro- press pest populations is a primary tactic, and inter- ducers in terms of implementing IPM. vention with pesticides or physical or biological The term IPM is familiar to many growers who supplementation a secondary tactic. Although ecolog- identify it specifically with tactics such as rotating, ical principles long have been central to IPM (Rabb scouting, monitoring temperature/humidity or other and Guthrie 1970), the recent calls for a new ecologi- environmental features, using predictive models for cally based pest management paradigm also have fungicide or bactericides applications, using certified involved greater investment in research to develop the seeds, and/or disease-resistant varieties, improving necessary biological and ecological knowledge base. sanitation, controlling alternative or overwintering Although the NAS and the Consumers Union (CU) hosts, using biological controls, maintaining plant each call for a new IPM paradigm, there are vast dif- health via fertility and water management, using ferences in proposed paths to the new paradigm. The high-quality seed, and planting into favorable condi- CU, in Pest Management at the Crossroads, calls for tions for rapid germination and seedling emergence. accelerated movement along the pest management To achieve EBMP or biointensive IPM, involved sci- continuum toward more biologically based manage- entists and others must see these tactics as elements ment, by implementation of existing IPM knowledge in an IPM continuum that growers should implement and tools. The organization also sets specific goals based on information from a multitude of disciplines. (e.g., 75% of crop acreage under medium- to high-lev- The interdisciplinary research and Extension educa- el IPM by 2010) (Benbrook et al. 1996) that are, giv- tion needed to achieve this goal will require focusing en current estimates, in large part attainable with on the implementation needs of the grower, not just modest investments (Fernandez-Cornejo and Jans on high-quality disciplinary science or Extension ed- 1999). On the other hand, to attain economic best ucation. To be successful in implementing IPM, the management practices (EBMP) as described by the IPM team clearly will need to involve more than the NAS, massive investments will be required to build pest disciplines alone. Implementation will require the ecological knowledge base needed for the multi- pest discipline partnerships with economists, sociol- tude of cropping systems, environments, and pest ogists, ecologists, horticulturists, agronomists, agri- complexes that comprise U.S. agriculture. Current- cultural engineers, geographic information specially, this knowledge base is incomplete for most pests ists, soil scientists, food processors, crop consultants, in all pest disciplines, and the development of inter- pesticide applicators, regulatory agencies, computer 226 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies scientists, consumers, public policy interest groups, future will be helping farmers sift through the glut and, again, most important, farmers. of data available in the Information Age and providing them with what they need. The Texas Pest Management Association’s (TPMA) Systems Approaches Internet site (TPMA 2002) is just one example of how As the aforementioned goals are addressed, anoth- complex the delivery of information can be. This state- er related, major long-term goal for maximizing the wide, multicommodity, nonprofit, producer organiza- benefits of IPM and many related cropping systems tion relies on approximately 150 field monitors each should focus on significantly increased understand- season to collect important information for farmers ing of the synchrony and interactions of microflora/ making pest and crop management decisions. The fauna in natural ecosystems. Further, through sys- organization’s web site offers the downloadable soft- tems research, information from natural harmonic ware package Scout Master (formerly, Cotton Data biological microhabitats and from advanced sustain- Entry Analysis Tool), a database management pro- able agriculture and organic production systems gram used primarily to record scouting but also crop should have great potential in the development of management data. Many other useful links appear large-scale, biointensive cropping systems. To bring on the site, from weather data to government agency such systems to fruition, knowledge of the unending links, to news and market data. The challenge is to ecological interactions among beneficial bacteria, fun- convince growers to use the information. Roughly 10% gi, insects, nematodes, protozoa, and other microflo- of IPM growers in various regions of the United States ra/fauna with crop plants and associated pests, as well use computers for pest management decisions (So- as knowledge of soil factors (organic matter, etc.) and rensen, Day, and Stewart 2000). This percentage is the general environment and production practices will greater (35%) among TPMA members but still com- be essential (Magdoff and van Es 2000). Central to paratively low. Helping growers become computer achieving this goal will be effective collaborative re- literate and take advantage of the information avail- search and Extension programs, including appropri- able on the Internet is one of the many challenges ate interfacing with funding/support agencies, as have faced by IPM educators. been described. Equally important, a systems ap- Information is the substructure on which IPM rec- proach (Merrigan 2000) can be adapted to facilitate ommendations are developed (Nowak, Padgett, and the management/direction of the biological sympho- Hoban 1996). Producers need to know about markets, ny composed of thousands of beneficial-crop-growth weather, new technologies, inputs, input prices, farm promoting, pest-suppressing organisms. As in most programs, and community activities. As an intensive natural ecosystems, a harmonic balance among ben- and information-based whole-system approach, IPM eficial organisms can minimize pest problems. Al- provides multiple options for pest control based on though this approach is not a cure-all for pests, its accurate data inputs. The information base from potential warrants increased research on numerous which producers can make the best possible decisions field and vegetable crops. regarding pest control is generated from on-farm, site- specific observations. As more agricultural production technologies become available, and as more and more Evolving Pool of Trainers and Speed of pests become resistant to conventional pesticides, Technology Transfer producers must have enhanced access to information. Currently, only one university (University of Flor- Integrated pest management systems must rapid- ida) offers a Ph.D. in plant medicine (University of ly incorporate new technologies such as GMOs and Florida 2002), but a number of universities continue precision agricultural tools into evolving pest manage- to offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees in ment systems. The technology push has several im- IPM (See Textbox 13.1). Facing continuing budget plications. Even though the research community pro- reductions in Extension service, the University of vides data regarding cutting-edge technologies, it may Florida’s program and similar curricula could be ex- no longer have enough lead time to produce the nec- panded to embrace long-distance teaching or learn- essary educational materials, especially for biotech- ing technologies. The ongoing development of a num- nologies (USEPA/USDA 1999). As new IPM technol- ber of National IPM Centers in the United States ogies become increasingly complex, they may be used undoubtedly will contribute toward providing the inappropriately or be discarded. Many new technol- much-needed pool of IPM trainers (See next section ogies involve unfamiliar concepts and require techni- on government policy). The real challenges for the cal skills that producers may not possess. Informa- Future Challenges and Directions 227 tion regarding costs, investments, and effects of new sion herein will address briefly the effects, assess- technologies on net returns may be unavailable. ments, and challenges of federal, international, and With IPM evolving toward more complex integrat- other governmental unit policies on IPM. ed systems, approaches to the education of IPM prac- At the state level, several universities and state de- titioners, delivery of information to producers, and partments of education and/or health have created evaluation of related effects will continue to change policy statements regarding implementation of IPM (See Chapter 13). The increasing rate of development in schools and on other public properties. Koehler, and the introduction of new technologies will chal- Fasulo, and Scherer (2002) provide information about lenge the agricultural community’s capacity to provide IPM policy implementation by local school boards. the necessary training and information to incorporate Many states (e.g., New York, Pennsylvania, Califor- new tools into existing IPM programs. This situation nia, and Texas) use IPM for pest control in parks and is especially true in a time of dwindling financial sup- on other state property and have provided direct IPM port for Extension programming. The importance of implementation funding. Schools represent one of the the role of the private sector in IPM training and de- most rapidly growing areas of IPM adoption. Imple- livery systems likely will increase, and, it is hoped, mentation of IPM for urban pests likely will be the complement public programs. policy for most public properties at the federal, state, and local levels. Although government IPM programs and policies Government Policy and Regulations have contributed to implementation at the grower Although significant progress has been made in level, many agencies and groups also have encouraged IPM during the last three decades (Fernandez-Corne- IPM adoption. These include the USDA, the EPA, jo and Jans 1999; Kennedy and Sutton 2000; Madden other government agencies, agricultural Extension 1992), much discussion and debate has focused on the services, universities, consumer groups, private in- level of related accomplishments (GAO 2001; Good- dustries, private consultants, and environmental or- ell and Zalom 2000; Merrigan 2000). Government ganizations (Fernandez-Cornejo and Jans 1999). polices including bans, regulations, resource alloca- Various facets of federal and international regulations, and special programs have shaped and will con- tion and IPM certification were discussed in Chapter tinue to shape IPM programs, especially those relat- 2. The USDA is responsible for issuing permits and ed to the 1993 IPM Clinton Administration/USDA notices related to regulated technologies (Bridges 1994 IPM Initiative to place 75% of crop acreage un- 2002). The EPA is involved in pesticide regulation der IPM by 2000 and to implement the FQPA (Ander- and also promotes the use of IPM, both in agriculture son and Milewski 2000; Jacobsen 1996). The 1993/ and in urban environments, particularly in schools, 1994 Clinton policy included the executive policy goal on right-of-ways, in home gardens, and on golf cours- for governmental departments and agencies, which es. A special division within the EPA’s Office of Pes- was to decrease pesticide use by 50% by implement- ticide Programs facilitates and accelerates the regis- ing IPM. This objective has been extremely challeng- tration of biopesticides compatible with IPM systems. ing for the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, The EPA’s Pesticide Applicator Training Program, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban conducted by the land-grant university system, ac- Development, Interior, and affiliated agencies such as quaints pesticide applicators with IPM principles. the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Although national and international regulations and and Federal Wildlife Service. On properties under labels have the most significant effects on IPM pro- their management, these agencies use significant grams, local governments also can play a key role. A quantities of pesticides for noncropland weed control few towns and cities have become so concerned about and for mosquito, ant, flea, fly, cockroach, silverfish, the possible negative aspects of pesticides that they and termite control. Significant progress has been have banned their use (Lutz 2000). made by all departments and affiliated agencies in The pending international phase-out of methyl bro- decreasing herbicide use for weed control and insec- mide undoubtedly offers one of the greatest IPM chal- ticide use for structural and urban insect pests. The lenges ever encountered by growers and scientists specific goals of the Clinton IPM Initiative and the (EPA 2000). But an equally difficult challenge is history of government policy relative to IPM are de- posed by the phasing in of the FQPA. This act rede- tailed in Chapter 1. Published assessments of IPM, fines how pesticides are regulated and will restrict especially those related to the 1994 IPM initiative, greatly the future availability of pesticides, organo- differ considerably in their conclusions. The discus- phosphate and carbamate insecticides, and several 228 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies fungicides. Fruits and vegetables will be especially National Research Initiative—Biology and Manage- carefully evaluated by the FQPA inasmuch as they ment of Pests and Beneficial Organisms, Biological- are prevalent in children’s diets. Regrettably, because ly Based Pest Management, Biology of Plant Microbe these crops are grown on relatively small acreages, Associations, and Biology of Weedy and Invasive they represent relatively small markets for new pes- Plants grant programs. ticide products. Because of the related risks that new In addition to establishing the aforementioned pesticide developments pose to the crop protection funding programs and other ongoing programs such industry, there has been little incentive to develop as the Regional IPM and National Research Initiative, new chemical pest management tools for these “mi- the USDA in 2000 established a network of regional nor use” crops. pest management centers that focus on major regional Integrated pest management implementation also cropping patterns, pests, and environmental issues. has been recognized as a crucial paradigm in imple- Four of these IPM centers were initiated late in 2000, mentation of the FQPA. Integrated pest management with eight others envisioned. Each of the four centers considerations are mentioned seven times in the is located in a region with characteristic cropping sys- FQPA legislation as mitigating factors to be consid- tems, weather patterns, pest problems, and geogra- ered in potential decisions to cancel pesticides under phies: the western region, the north central region, the FQPA. In the reregistration process, the EPA the southern region, and the northeastern region of must consider issues such as pest RM, and damage the United States. The purposes of these centers are to established IPM programs. Thus, FQPA law en- to foster coordination of program activities and to help courages IPM implementation in word; in practice, identify research and education priorities. The cen- however, the FQPA, by restricting whole classes of ters also facilitate more efficient and less repetitive pesticides, sharply restricts farmers’ flexibility in pest management programming for regions charac- managing pests. In particular, the EPA’s implemen- terized by specific production systems. With funding tation of the FQPA by restricting pesticide registra- coming from the Pesticide Impact Assessment Pro- tions for specified uses, when combined with the act’s grams (PIAP) and other sources, each center is fund- proviso that all pesticide use be limited to what would ed at $1,000,000/yr for 3 yr. Although the four new be safe for the most-sensitive consumers, constitutes centers must use funds to continue the PIAP data- a significant barrier to more flexible, lower-cost IPM gathering functions, the master plan will direct funds, methods that might use risky pesticides in small including current formula IPM funds and some re- amounts under special circumstances (Swinton and gional IPM dollars, through these centers to encour- Batie 2001). Also, the FQPA might negatively affect age IPM activities at the ecosystem or regional level. the availability of quality food (Ragsdale 2000). Currently, the regional centers place a high priority In response to fundamental crop protection ques- on fulfilling the requirements of the FQPA. tions posed by implementation of the FQPA, the The Pest Management Information Decision Sup- USDA in concert with the EPA recently developed port System (PMIDSS), a web-based program man- three new grant programs related to IPM (Coble, H. aged by the NSF Pest Management Center (Center 2001. Personal communication). These are the Pest for Integrated Pest Management 2002) promises ad- Management Alternatives Program (PMAP); the ditional support for these centers and others. This Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR); and support will include the provision of information from the FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program numerous databases that should facilitate the devel- (RAMP). The PMAP addresses short-term (1- to 2- opment of improved IPM strategies and tactics as well yr) needs for development of replacement tactics for as address IPM-related aspects of the FQPA (Zurek pesticides targeted for cancellation. The CAR ad- and Henry 2002). dresses intermediate-term (2- to 3-yr) research and Whereas IPM funding for research continues to be Extension work to provide the basis for transitions for limited, total IPM funding is considerable. For exam- crops or cropping systems affected negatively by ple, IPM funds by Cooperative State Research, Edu- FQPA implementation. The RAMP funds intermedi- cation, and Extension Service in FY 2002 are as fol- ate to long-term (3- to 5-yr) biointensive research and lows: PMAP—$1.625 million; CAR—$1.5 million; Extension projects to enhance stability and sustain- RAMP—$4.9 million; Extension (formula and spe- ability of pest management systems within crop re- cial)—$10.783 million; RIPM—$2.731 million; and gions, generally multistate. In FY 2000, these three Alternatives to Methyl Bromide—$2.5 million (Coble, programs supplemented the USDA Regional IPM H. 2002. Personal communication). Although this Research and Extension grant programs and the funding amounts to more than $20 million, it is inad- Future Challenges and Directions 229 equate to support a sorely needed systems approach Risk management has become a central topic in to IPM. farm policy discussions (Jacobsen 2000). Because insurance companies require a production history, farmers generally cannot secure crop insurance. Crop in- Assessments of Integrated Pest surance for best management practices, IPM, and Management IPM labeling could have important effects on pest An intensive, survey-based study for the year 1996 management (Jacobsen 2000). On December 12, by Fernandez-Cornejo and Jans (1999) documented 2001, the USDA’s Risk Management Agency endorsed striking progress in the adoption of IPM for field crops. an insurance policy that allows farmers to decrease For example, scouting for weeds in acres planted in- their use of fertilizer without fear of losing money if cluded 72% of cotton and 94% of fall potatoes. Over- yields drop. The new policy, designed by American all, scouting for insects averaged 67%. (Note: Scout- Farmland Trust’s Agricultural Conservation Innova- ing may indicate more precise timing of pesticide tion Center (ACIC), insures farmers who follow uni- application—more important would be information versity recommendations for applying nitrogen and about alternative practices such as biocontrol.) Great- phosphorus on corn against any potential losses in er than 50% of all acreage planted to field crops was yield. The new insurance will be available to farm- scouted for disease. Percentage of fields scouted for ers in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in 2003. The fruit pests ranged from 71% for peach to 98% for ACIC also is developing IPM policies for corn root- strawberry. An example of a key IPM practice in fruit worm and for potatoes. production was alternating pesticides to minimize pest resistance. This practice was followed in 75% of apples, compared with 36% of grapes. Pest resistant Improvements Needed to Further varieties also were used at fairly high rates: peach— 44%, tomato and strawberry—37%. (See Chapter 4 the Goals of Integrated Pest for more examples of IPM implementation, especial- Management ly for field crops; see Chapter 12 for details regarding IPM adoption). But in 2000, Merrigan stated that In an August 2001 report, the U.S. General Ac- only by “some absurd calculations” (p. 497) could one counting Office (GAO) assessed the success of the suggest that the 75% goal of IPM implementation had USDA’s 1994 IPM Initiative and offered recommen- been reached. In a 2001 FAO report, one conclusion dations that could facilitate the development of IPM. indicated that only 18% of farms had achieved a bio- That report identified several IPM facets needed to intensive level of IPM. Because of the “collective fail- promote pest management. One key issue involved ure to meet the 75% goal,” Merrigan also suggested the use of a definition of IPM that differentiated be- that regardless of the differing assessments, “we can tween practices tending to decrease chemical use agree that we are not where we had hoped to be when (those that are biologically based) and those that do the IPM Initiative was announced ... ” (p. 497). She not. A federal entity with authority to lead the IPM also concluded that one of the greatest shortcomings initiative—including the coordination of IPM pro- in most current IPM programs is the limited use of a grams sponsored by the six agencies, the land-grant systems approach. Although much progress has been universities, and the EPA—is crucial to the develop- made within given pest types (and often-associated ment of IPM. A related recommendation involves the pest antagonists/pathogens/crops) (Kennedy and Sut- establishment of effective department-wide leader- ton 2000; Madden 1992), integration across pest types ship, coordination, and management of federally fund- for given crops and for overall production systems ed IPM efforts. Additional needs and shortcomings continues to be limited. in the current IPM programs are enumerated in the Government policies regarding specific groups of GAO report (2001). foods or products such as organic foods and GMOs con- In response to the GAO report, the USDA agreed tinue to evolve. For organics, the Final Rule excludes to the following (Coble, H. 2001. Personal communi- the use of GMOs as well as most pesticides (See Chap- cation): ter 4). The ongoing national and international debates 1. to work with all relevant and involved agencies on the future of GMOs undoubtedly will affect poli- and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive, au- cies related to production, marketing, and use of these thoritative, and focused road map for IPM; new products (See earlier section on Gene Technolo- gy Constraints). 2. to prioritize the results the department wants to 230 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

achieve by developing a strategic plan finalized adequate infrastructure for IPM will accompany de- by a national workshop; and velopment and deployment of these improved and, 3. to work with all agencies to set measurable goals often, new systems. As the earth’s carrying capacity for the IPM initiative and to devise methods for for humankind is stretched further each year, and as measuring progress toward goals. thousands of invasive pests are encountered across the country (and potentially augmented in unforeseen The most recent legislation to affect IPM adoption ways through agricultural bioterrorism), research, is the 2002 Farm Bill. The new IPM initiative will agriculture, industry, government, and communities focus on decreasing both economic and environmen- must work together to address the quality of food and tal risk (Coble, H. 2002. Personal communication; fiber. In this regard, IPM provides a robust and ef- Kelley 2002; USDA–RMA 2003). The 1996 Federal fective framework for resolving current as well as Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act has unforeseen pest-related problems. provided incentives to use IPM practices in certain regions under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. This approach could be extended signifi- Appendix A. Abbreviations and cantly under the 2002 legislation (U.S. Senate 2000), which could foster IPM adoption, possibly by includ- Acronyms ing “green payments” to farmers for environmental a. acre stewardship. The new initiative, known as the “Na- Bt Bacillus thuringiensis tional Roadmap for IPM,” was introduced at the Fourth National IPM Symposium in Indianapolis in CAR Crops at Risk from the Food Quality April 2003 (Agriculture Texas 2002; Coble, H. 2002. Protection Act Personal communication). If the criteria for receiv- DNA deoxyribonucleic acid ing payments include adoption of new IPM practices, EBMP economic best management practices the act might meaningfully expand the scope and di- EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency versity of IPM practices on U.S. farms. As indicated FQPA Food Quality Protection Act earlier, however, decisions regarding the use of related funds will be made at the state level. The federal GAO General Accounting Office act on agricultural bioterrorism (Hutchinson 2001) GMO genetically modified organism and a related bill recently approved (CID 2002; Hawks ICM integrated crop management 2002), which describe new programs and expand oth- IPM integrated pest management ers to address the threat of agricultural bioterrorism, NAS National Academy of Sciences likely will impact IPM programs. Rapid and reliable pest diagnostic identification methods and effective NRC National Research Council countermeasures are needed urgently (Schaad, N. PIAP Pesticide Impact Assessment Programs 2002. Personal communication). PMAP Pest Management Alternatives Pro- In conclusion, IPM, even with very limited resourc- gram es, has progressed phenomenally since the 1982 CAST RAMPRisk Avoidance and Mitigation Program report was published. And with new technical re- RM resistance management sources becoming available, the prospects for IPM and related cropping systems are excellent. Examples of TPMA Texas Pest Management Association emerging technologies and issues include genetic en- USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture gineering; precision agriculture; a growing under- yr year standing of soil microbiology/ecology and of soil microbes to enhance plant growth while suppressing crop pests; and new, safer, and often “natural” pesti- Appendix B. Glossary cide chemistries. In addition, rapidly increasing computer capacity should facilitate the use of a systems Cross-resistance. Whereby a pest becomes resistant approach for the harmonic deployment of improved to two or more pesticides without being exposed IPM strategies and tactics in continually improved to all chemistries involved. crop and animal production/management systems. Pest-protected plants. Plants resistant to pests. Major challenges such as public perceptions of new Pleiotropic. Related to unanticipated effects on technologies, limited financial resources, and an in- plant physiology. Future Challenges and Directions 231

ment: Concepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, Literature Cited American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Hawks, B. 2002. Rules and Regulations—Agricultural Bioterror- Agriculture Texas. 2002. Fourth National IPM Symposium/Work- ism Protection Act of 2002: Listing of biological agents and tox- shop, April 8–10, 2003, (22 January 2003) ins and requirements and procedures for notification of possession. Fed Regist 67-155. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Anderson, J. L. and E. Milewski. 2000. Regulation of plant-pesti- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington, D.C. cides: Current status. Pp. 154–162. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Hutchinson, K. B. 2001. The Agricultural Bioterrorism Counter- measures Act of 2001, October 17, (18 October 2002) Press, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minneso- ta. Jacobsen, B. 1996. USDA Integrated Pest Management Initiative. National IPM Network, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Benbrook, C., E. Groth, III, J. M. Halloran, M. K. Hansen, and S. Jacobsen, B. 2000. Summary: International conference on emerg- Marguardt. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. Con- sumers Union, Yonkers, New York. 272 pp. ing technologies for integrated pest management. Pp. 505–513. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technolo- Bridges, D. C. 2002. Implications of pest-resistant/herbicide tol- gies for Integrated Pest Management: Concept, Research, and erant plants for IPM. Pp. 141–162. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technology for Integrated Pest Man- Implementation. APS Press, American Phytopathological So- ciety, St. Paul, Minnesota. agement: Concepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, Kelley, S. 2002. United States Farm Bills. (23 January 2003) Kennedy, G. G. 2000. Perspectives on progress in IPM. Pp. 2–11. G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technolo- for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Im- plementation. APS Press, American Phytopathological Society, gies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, the American Phytopathological St. Paul, Minnesota. Society, St. Paul, Minnesota Cavigelli, M. A., S. R. Deming, L. K. Probyn, and D. R. Mutch (eds.). 2000. Michigan Field Crop Pest Ecology and Management. Kennedy, G. G. and T. B. Sutton (eds.). 2000. Emerging Technol- ogies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Extension Bulletin E–2704. Michigan State University, East Implementation. APS Press, American Phytopathological So- Lansing. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CID). 2002. ciety, St. Paul, Minnesota. Koehler, P. G., T. R. Fasulo, and C. W. Scherer. 2002. School IPM, Congress approves wide-ranging bioterrorism bill, (9 September 2002) www1.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/biosecurity/news/btbill.html> Kogan, M. 1998. Integrated pest management: Historical perspec- (23 January 2003) tives and contemporary developments. Annu Rev Entomol Center for Integrated Pest Management. 2002. Homepage, (9 September 2002) 43:243–270. Liebman, M., C. L. Mohler, and C. P. Staver. 2001. Ecological Man- Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1982. agement of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge University Press, Integrated Pest Management. Report Number 93. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. United Kingdom. Lutz, K. 2000. California town bans pesticides on city property, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2001. March 16, (9 Evaluation of the U.S. Regulatory Process for Crops Developed through Biotechnology. Issue Paper Number 19. Council for September 2002) Madden, J. P. (ed.). 1992. Beyond pesticides: Biological approaches Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. to pest management in California. Division of Agriculture and Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and S. Jans. 1999. Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture. Agriculture Handbook Number 177. Economic Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland. Magdoff, F. and H. van Es. 2000. Building Soils for Better Crops. Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, (2nd ed.). Sustainable Agriculture Network, Burlington, Ver- D.C. Ferro, D. N. 2000. Success and failure of Bt products: Colorado mont. Merrigan, K. A. 2000. Politics, policy, and IPM. Pp. 497–504. In potato beetle. A case study. Pp. 177–189. In G. G. Kennedy G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Implementation. for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Im- plementation. APS Press, American Phytopathological Society, APS Press, American Phytopathology Society, St. Paul, Minne- St. Paul, Minnesota. sota. Fitt, G. P. and L. J. Wilson. 2000. Genetic engineering in IPM: Bt National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP). 2002. cotton. Pp. 108–125. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sutton (eds.). Plant biotechnology: Current and potential impact for improv- Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management: Con- ing pest management in U.S. agriculture. An analysis of 40 case cepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, American studies, (Decem- Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. ber 15, 2002) Geden, C. J. and J. A. Hogsette (eds.). 2001. Research and exten- National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Ecologically Based Pest sion needs for integrated pest management for arthropods of Management: New Solutions for a New Century. National Acad- veterinary importance, (18 October 2002) National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Genetically Modified Pest- Goodell, P. B. and F. G. Zalom. 2000. Delivering IPM: Progress Protected Plants: Science and Regulation. Committee on Ge- and challenges. Pp. 483–496. In G. G. Kennedy and T. B. Sut- netically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, Board on Agricultur- ton (eds.). Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Manage- al and Natural Resources, National Academy Press, 232 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Washington, D.C. 261 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department Nowak, P., S. Padgett, and T. J. Hoban. 1996. Practical consider- of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. Conference on Bt corn, Chicago, ations in assessing barriers to IPM adoption. Pp. 93–114. In Illinois, June 18. S. Lynch, C. Greene, and C. Kramer-LeBlanc (eds.). Proceed- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Methyl bro- ings of the Third International IPM Symposium/Workshop. mide phaseout changes in the U.S. U.S. Environmental Pro- Broadening Support for 21st Century IPM. Economic Research tection Agency. Washington, D.C. Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2001. Agricultural Pesti- Rabb, R. L. and F. E. Guthrie (eds.). 1970. Concepts of Pest Man- cides: Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote agement. North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Integrated Pest Management. Report GAO–01–815. U.S. Gen- Ragsdale, N. N. 2000. The impact of the Food Quality Protection eral Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Act on the future of plant disease management. Annu Rev Phy- U.S. Senate. 2000. Conservation Security Act of 2000. S.3223/ topathol 38:577–596. S.3260/HR5511.IH. Sorensen, A., E. Day, and P. Stewart. 2000. Factors affecting the Zurek, E. and D. Henry. 2002. Welcome to the USDA regional pest adoption of new technologies. Pp. 12–31. In G. G. Kennedy and management centers information system, (9 September 2002) Management: Concepts, Research, and Implementation. APS Press, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Related Web Sites Swinton, S. M. and S. S. Batie. 2001. FQPA: Pouring out (in?) the risk cup. Choices 16:14–17. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. 2002. Homep- Texas Plant Management Association (TPMA). 2002. Homepage, age, (14 October 2002) (9 September 2002) Integrated Pest Management Practitioners Association. 2002. University of Florida. 2002. Plant medicine, July 11, (9 September 2002) ipmpa.html> (14 October 2002) University of Guelph. 2002. Homepage, Invasivespecies.gov. 2002. Homepage, September 30, (9 September 2002) (14 October 2002) U.S. Department of Agriculture–Risk Management Agency University of California Integrated Pest Management Program. (USDA–RMA). 2003. RMA online. 2002 Farm Bill, (14 October 2002) www.rma.usda.gov/news/2002farmbill> (23 January 2003) Index 233

Index

A Alternative pesticides, 195 Amaranthus species, 64 Abadilla, 195 American Farmland Trust's Agricultural Conservation Innovation Acaricides, 57–58, 180, 183, 184 Center (ACIC), 229 Acetamiprid, 58 American Phytopathological Society, 93 Actinomycetes, 58 American Society of Agronomy, 121 Action thresholds, 116, 123, 186 Amino acid synthesis inhibitor herbicides, 131 Adkisson Project, 105 Amitraz, 184 Advanced computer software, 82 Anemia, 8 Aerial gunning from fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, 177 Animal cloning, 5 Aflatoxin, 97 Annosus root rot, 112, 115 Africanized honeybee, 25 Annual ryegrass, 64 Agricultural bioterrorism, 73 Antagonistic plants, 5, 27–28, 92 Agricultural Bioterrorism Countermeasures Act (2001), 73 Anthrax, 158 Agricultural income risk, integrated pest management and, 200– Antiaggregation, 116 201 Antler rubbing, tree damage caused by, 171 Agricultural integrated pest management, 188 Ants, 196 Agricultural product identity preservation, 87–88 Aphanomyces spp., 26 Agriculture. See also Farming Aphids, 26, 33, 58, 134 alternative, 120 brown citrus, 25 biodynamic, 120 Russian wheat, 25 biological, 120 soybean, 25, 54, 99 ecological, 66, 120 Apple black rot, 27 effect of biotechnology on, 20 Apple maggots, 54 low-input, 120 Apple scab, 12, 55, 63 natural, 120 Applied technology, 46 no-till, 88 Aquatic site drainage, 141 organic, 120 Aquatic vegetation, integrated management of, 7, 145–155 organic systems/sustainable, 117–122 Area repellents, 174, 177 precision, 5, 10, 43, 61, 115 Argas spp., 165 reduced input, 120 Army Corps of Engineers, U.S., 150 regenerative, 120 Armyworm complex, 134 row crop, 61 Asian long-horned beetle, 25, 114 site-specific, 43, 82 Aspergillus spp., 26 sustainable, 6, 34, 120, 121–122 Assessment Agrobacterium radiobacter, 50, 51–52 damage Agrobacterium tumefaciens, 50 for companion animal, 184 Agroecosystems, 14, 92, 93, 95, 96, 128 for mammals, 175–176 Agroforestry, 119 for rodents, 174–175 Alar scare, 105–106 for ungulates, 171–172 Aldicarb, 59 of insect infestations, 43–44 Aldrich-type foot snare, 177 of integrated pest management, 2, 3, 229 Alfalfa weevil, 12 life-cycle, 67 Algae control, 149–150 public program, 202–205 Allelopathy, 29, 33, 74 weed, 45–46 Allergies, 191. See also Flea-allergy dermatitis Asteraceae, 131 Alligatorweed, 149 Asthma, 191 Alligatorweed flea beetle, 151 Augmentation biocontrol, 46 Alligatorweed stem borer, 151 AU-PNUTS, 15 Alligatorweed thrips, 151 Australian leaf mining flies, 153 Alphitobius diaperinus, 163 Automated data acquisition, 84–86 Alternaria leaf spot, 100 Avermectins, 58 Alternative agriculture, 120 Avoidance, 12

233 234 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Azadirachtin, 60, 195 Bioeconomic weed management models, 96 Azoxystrobin, 56 Bioherbicides, 49–50. See also Herbicides; Nematicides Bioinformatics, 5, 82, 88, 90 B Bioinsecticides, 48–49 Biointensive cropping systems, 226 Babesiosis, 180, 181 Biointensive integrated pest management, 12, 19, 21 Bacillus megaterium, 51 Biological agriculture, 120 Bacillus sphaericus, 51 Biological balance/imbalance, 14 Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops, 9, 20–21, 30, 33, 39–40, 47, 49, Biological controls, 46–53, 70, 142. See also Biocontrols 58, 63–64, 163, 164, 166, 183, 200, 223, 224 agents in, 29, 132 Bacteria, efforts in controlling, 63 in aquatic vegetation, 148–149 Bacteriaphages, 52 augmentation, 46 Bacteria tests, 45 classical, 46, 148, 155 Bactericides, 11 of companion animal pests, 185 trends in, 56–57 for ectoparasites, 166 Bacterivorous, 92 in natural areas management, 142–143 Bahia grasses, 135 organisms in, 46 Baited traps, 162 products in, 46 Baiting techniques, 196 in rangeland and pasture, 131–132 Barberry eradication program, 27 in urban integrated pest management, 194–195 Barrel traps, 177 Biologically based integrated pest management, 47 Basal bark application, 142 Biological strategies Bean leaf beetles, 98 in crop-production systems, 99, 123 Beardgrass, 135 in site-specific integrated pest management, 86–87 Bears, 176 Biopesticides, 46, 47, 50 trapping of, 177 development of, 47 Beauveria bassiana, 163, 164, 166 Biotechnology, 47, 59, 82, 87, 118, 221. See also Technology Beavers, 174, 175 effect of, on agriculture, 20 Bedbugs, 164 Bioterrorism, agricultural, 73 Bees, 25, 109 Black chaff, 28 Beet armyworm, 33 Black cutworm, 97 Beetles Black flies, 159 alligatorweed flea, 149 Blackleg, 28 Asian long-horned, 25 Black night shade, 28 bean leaf, 98 Black rot, 28, 100-101 Colorado potato, 58 Black soldier flies, 163 control of, 58, 98, 162, 163–164, 191 Blatta orientalis, 161 cucumber, 100 Blattella germanica, 161 dermestid, 164 Blowflies, 161 dung, 160 Blown grass, 135 European elm bark, 25 Boll weevil, 12, 97, 98 hide, 163 Bollworms, pink, 37, 54, 97 lady, 191 Borates, 185 larder, 163 Boric acids, 161 Mexican bean, 98 Botanicals, 185 predaceous, 162 Botrytis, 26 Southern pine, 111 Botrytis cinerea, 51 Vedalia lady, 46 Botrytis gray mold, 26, 27 Benefit-cost analysis (BCA), 2, 9, 97, 198–200, 206. See also Cost- Brassica spp., 92 benefit analysis Breeding Benzimidazole, 63 for disease resistance, 30 Better Banana Project, 65–66 for host resistance, 33–34 Binucleate rhizoctonia, 52 Broadcast applications, 142 Bioassays, 41, 44–45 Broccoli, disease-resistant, 100–101 Biocides, 116 Brome weed, 35 Biocontrols. See also Biological controls Brown citrus aphid, 25 agents in, 57 Brown stem rot, 37 methods for enhancing, 52–53 Brucellosis, 158 options for ectoparasites, 185 Building design, 193 of plant pathogens, 50–52 Bulrush, 152 Biodegradation, 36 Bureau of Land Management, 129 Biodiversity, 52, 73, 121, 122, 123, 124 Bureau of Reclamation, 129 Biodynamic agriculture, 120 Burholderia cepacia, 52 Bioeconomic models, 199 Burning, 130 Index 235

prescribed, 140–141 Coddling moth, 12 Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, 45 Coffee, 66 Coffee rust, 25, 71 C Colletotrichum orbiculare, 51 Colorado potato beetle, 58 Cabbage Columbia lance nematode, 98 disease-resistant, 100–101 Commercial ELISA kits, 45 eliminating herbicides in New York State, 103 Common Agricultural Policy, 217 California, University of Common lambsquarters, 50 IPM Program Pest Management Guidelines for Barnyardgrass, Companion-animal ectoparasites, 1–2, 8. See also Pet ownership 101–102 biological control of, 185 Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project of, 211 chemical control of, 185 California–Berkeley, University of, integrated pest management diseases associated with, 181 education at, 210 host animal resistance, 185 California–Davis, University of, 108 mechanical control of, 186 integrated pest management education at, 210 monitoring and action thresholds, 186 California–Riverside, University of, integrated pest management natural products, 185 education at, 210 suppression of, 184 California State Polytechnic College, integrated pest management Competitive Grants Program, 15 education at, 210 Composted bark, 119 California State University–Fresno, integrated pest management Comstock mealy bugs, 54 education at, 210 Comstock Michigan Fruit, 67, 106 Campbell Soup Company, 21 Connecticut, University of, integrated pest management education Canada thistle, 133 at, 212 Canker diseases, 27, 29 Conservation, 46 Carbamates, 57, 165, 184, 185 Conservation Agricultural Network, 65–66 Carcinops pumilio, 162 Conservation tillage, 88 Carrots, 101 Consortium for Integrated Pest Management (CIPM), 14 Carson, Rachel, 4, 11 Contact repellents, 173, 177 Carter, Administration, 14, 16 Contraception for herd control, 173 Cat fleas, 181–182 Cooperative Extension Service (CES) initiative, 11 Cattle grubs, 159 Copper-containing herbicides, 152 Cedar-apple rust, 27 CORE Values Northeast (CVN), 66 Cell-membrane disruptor herbicides, 131 Corn earworm, 33, 97 Cercospera rodmanii, 152 Cornell University, 21, 67, 109 Certification programs, 26, 65–69, 109 Cooperative Extension, 105 Cheat, 36 integrated pest management education at, 210, 212 Chemical controls Cornell/Wegmans IPM label, 67 of companion-animal ectoparasites, 185 Corn insects and pathogens, 96–97 of rangeland and pasture, 131 Corn leaf blight epidemic, 72 Chemical herbicides, 131 Corn root worms, 36, 96 Chemical pesticides, 58–59, 65, 120, 191–192, 195. See also Insec- integrated pest management policy for, 201 ticidal chemicals Cost-benefit analysis. See Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) trends in, 55–56 Cotton boll weevil, 72 Chemosterilants, 173 Cotton fleahopper, 98 Chenopodium album, 64 Cotton insects and pathogens, 97–98 Chestnut blight, 12, 25, 30, 72 Cottony cushion scale, 46 Chicken lice, 164 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 13–14 Chicken mites, 164 Cover crops, 5, 35, 38–39, 52, 92, 104 Chinch bugs, 134 Coyotes, 176, 177 Chipmunks, 175 methods for trapping, 177 Chisel plowing, 130 Creeping foxtail, 131 Chlorinated hydrocarbons, 184, 185 CROPGRO-soybean simulation model, 93 Chloronicotinyls, 184 Crop insurance, 10, 122, 222 Cimex lectularius, 164 Crop pests, cultural practices for minimizing, 34–40 Citrus canker, 25, 27 Cropping systems, 52, 59, 122 Citrus County, 150 biointensive, 226 Classical biological control, 46, 148, 155 deployment in, 1 Clinton, Administration, integrated pest management programs, organic, 117–118 4, 16, 102, 137 sustainable, 120–121, 221 Clopyralid, 131 Crop production systems, 6, 92–122 Cockroaches, 160, 161, 191, 196 field, 93–99 German, 161 fruit, 103–109 Oriental, 161 integrated forest pest management, 111–116 236 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

organic/sustainable agriculture, 117–122 Disease resistance, 30, 33 vegetable, 99–103 Diseases. See also specific diseases Crop resistance, 29–30. See also Host resistance; Pest-resistant associated with companion animals, 8 crops economically important pest-related, 32 Crop rotation, 5, 11, 27, 35–37, 59, 92, 121, 175 foreign plant, 25 Crops at risk (CAR), 15 pest-related, 12 Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation, 228 pest-specific, 195 Crop simulation models, 93 Disease-suppressive bark mulches, 119 Cross-resistance, 244 Disease-suppressive potted mixtures, 119 Crotalaria, 28 Disinfection, 13 Crystal and Homosassa Rivers Aquatic Plant Management Inter- DiTera, 60 agency Committee, 150 DNA technology, 10, 43 Crystal River Chamber of Commerce, 150 Dodder, 50 Ctenocephalides felis, 181–182 Dogwood anthracnose, 115 Cucumber beetle, 100 Donkeys, 176 Cultural controls, 6, 11 Douglas fir tussock moth defoliation, 115 in beetle management, 164 Downy brome, 50, 131, 133 integrating programs for, 40 Drawdown, 147–148, 155 in minimizing crop pests, 34–40 Drop-door box traps, 174 in natural areas management, 140–142 Drosophila repleta, 161 in urban integrated pest management, 194 Dry-waste systems, 8 Culvert traps, 177 Dump flies, 161, 163 Cyst nematodes, 12, 26, 27, 36–37, 92 Dung beetles, 160 Dust mites, 191 D Dutch elm disease, 12, 25, 27, 72 Dynamic thresholds, 199, 206 Dalmatian toadflax, 133 Damping-off diseases, 26 E Decision support aids, 41–46 Decision support systems (DSS), 89–90, 199 Early blight, 101 for agrotechnology transfer, 90 Ear mites, 181, 182 models for, 82 Ear shank tunneling, 96 situation-specific, 190–192 Ear tags, 159–160 Decreased tillage, 92 Eastern black nightshade, 36 Deer browsing, 171–172 Eastern cottonwood, 113 Defoliant use, 97–98, 101 Echidnophaga gallinacea, 165 Defoliators, 98 Ecolabels, 9, 103, 205. See also Labeling Delaware, University of, integrated pest management education in international context, 67–68 at, 212 Ecological agriculture, 66, 120 Delivery systems in integrated pest management, 211 Ecological elasticity, 224 De-methylation inhibitor fungicides, 63 Ecologically based integrated pest management, 39 Demodex mites, 182–183 Ecologically Based Pest Management: New Solutions for a New Demodicosis, 182–183 Century (Overton), 4, 19, 225 Deployment in cropping systems, 1 Ecologically based pest management (EBPM), 12, 19, 21, 92, 122 Dermanyssus gallinae, 164 Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds (Liebman, Mohler, Dermatitis, flea-allergy, 8, 181–182, 187 and Staver), 93 Dermestes lardarius, 163 Economically optimal rotation age, 115, 123 Dermestes maculatus, 163 Economic best management practices (EBMP), 225 Dermestid beetles, 164 Economic injury level, 5, 12, 22 Diagnostics, use of, 43–46 Economics Diamondback moth, 38 adoption of integrated pest management and, 202 Diapausing, 160, 166 benefit-cost analysis and, 2, 9, 198–200, 206 Diatomaceous earth, 161 integrated pest management and agricultural income risk, 200– Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), 57 201 Dichloropropene-chloropicrin, 60 public program assessment, 202–205 Dichloropropane-dichloropropene mixture (D-D), 59 relationship to integrated pest management, 2, 9, 198 Diethyl toluamide (DEET), 184 Economic thresholds, 6, 9, 12, 22, 199 Diffuse knapweed, 132 ECO-O.K. Conservation Coffee Project, 66 Dipylidium caninum, 180 Ecosystem resilience, 111 Diquat dibromide, 152 Ectoparasites, 8, 180, 187 Direct intervention, 115 companion-animal, 1–2, 8, 181–186 Direct parasitism, 29 population monitoring and damage assessment, 184 Dirofilaria immitis, 180, 181 suppression of, 184 Disease-free planting materials, 26 controlling infestations of, 165–166 Index 237

management of, 164–166 Federal Noxious Weed Act (1974), 71, 128, 137 Ecotypes, 96, 123 Federal Noxious Weed List, 139 Education Federal price supports, 205 delivery systems and, 2, 9–10 Felicola subrostrata, 183 in integrated pest management, 209–212, 213–215, 216 Fermentation products, 58 in pesticide application, 228 Fertilizer, application of, 83, 86, 87, 89, 119, 122 in pest management, 2 Fescue, 131 in urban integrated pest management, 189–190 Field corn, 96, 123 in weed management, 128–129 Field crops, 93–99 Ehrlichiosis, 8, 180, 181, 184 concerns for the future, 99 Electrical grids, 162 corn insects and pathogens, 96–97 Electric fences, 172–173, 176 cotton insects and pathogens, 97–98 Emersed plants, 145, 155 soybean insects and pathogens, 98–99 Endoparasites, 46, 161 weeds, 95–99 Endophyte infection, 135 Field management zones, 86 Entomopathogenic fungus, 161 Field mapping, 95 Entomopathogens, 118, 125 Field organic systems, 119–120 Entomophilic nematodes, 47 Field scouting, 101, 102 Entomophthora muscae, 163 Financial benefit-cost analysis, 206. See also Benefit-cost analysis Environmental indicator models, 217–219 Fipronil, 58, 184 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 11, 205 Fire ants, 54, 70, 134, 224 Pesticide Applicator Training Program, 228 imported, 25 Pesticide Use/Risk Reduction Initiative, 17 Fire blight, 27, 51, 57 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Initiative, 17–19 Fireworks, 173 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), 201, 204, 222, First-level integrated pest management, 107, 123 230 Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S., 150 Environmental sickness, 191, 196 Flea-allergy dermatitis, 8, 181–182, 187. See also Allergies Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), 44, 45 Flea beetle, 12 Equine infectious anemia, 158 Flea combing, 186 Eradication, 25, 27–29, 54, 72, 97, 159, 192, 193 Fleas, 8, 180, 181–182, 191 Erosion productivity impact calculator model, 93 cat, 181–182 Erwinia amylovora, 63 sticktight, 165 Escherichia coli, 163 Flies, 191 Eurasian watermilfoil, 148, 153–154 Australian leaf mining, 153 European Agenda 2000, 217 black, 159 European Commission, 217 blow, 161 European corn borer, 25, 27, 96 dump, 161, 163 European elm bark beetle, 25 face, 159 Exclusion, pest prevention by, 172, 175, 176, 183, 192–193 fruit, 161 Exclusion/avoidance of pests, 25–27 Hessian, 12, 31 Exotic Pest Plant Councils (EPPCs), 7, 137 horn, 159–160 Experiment Station Committee on Policy (ESCOP), 14 horse, 159 Extension IPM Implementation Program (EIPM), 69 house, 1, 8, 157–159, 160–161 Externalities, 203, 205 leaf mining, 153 Mediterranean fruit, 25 F muscoid, 161 phorid, 70 Face flies, 159 screwworm, 159 Fallows, 27, 74 soldier, 161 Fannia spp., 161 stable, 8, 157–161, 184 Farinocystis tribolii, 164 wheat stem saw, 25 Farm-enterprise economic budgeting, 90 white, 72 Farming. See also Agriculture Floating plants, 145, 155 organic, 118, 123 Flood irrigation, 175 precision, 5, 82–83, 90 Flood plain staggers, 135 Farm-related regulations, 53–54 Florida Farmscaping, 52 Department of Environmental Protection, 150 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act (1996), Exotic Pest Plant Council, 139 201, 230 Florida, University of, 9, 226 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1954), 54, 205 Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 150 Delaney Clause of, 16 Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association (FNGA), 139 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Amendments Fly management (1988), 157 in livestock, 157–158, 159, 160 Federal Interagency Invasive Species Council, 137–138 in poultry, 161–163 238 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

in swine, 160–161 G Flyspeck, 63 Food, Crop Pests, and the Environment: The Need and Potential Gamma amino butyric acid (GABA) receptors, 58 for Biologically Intensive Integrated Pest Management (Zalom Gas exploders, 173 and Fry), 16 Gastroenteritis, 161 Food Alliance, 67 Gene encoding, 88 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 25 Gene-for-gene concept, 29 Food animals, 1–2, 7–8 Gene pool enrichment, 31, 33, 74 integrated pest management with, 157–166 General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 68, 217 beetles, 163–164 Gene technology constraints, 2, 222–224 ectoparasites, 164–166 Genetically engineered crops, 222–223 future needs for, 166 Genetically engineered herbicide tolerance, 95 livestock, 157–159 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), 1, 3, 4, 20, 21, 53, 58, 63– poultry, 161–163 64, 86, 117, 118, 224 range cattle, 159–160 Genetic diversity and pest adaptability, 2, 224–225 swine, 160–161 Genetic engineering, 6, 10, 87 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996), 3, 4, 10, 16, 46–47, 56, Genetic resistance, 29 57, 59, 68, 69, 157, 205, 217, 221, 222, 227–228 Genetic transfer of resistance, 31 Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP), 14–15, 228 Gene transfer, 88 Food Security Act (1985), 120 Geographic information systems (GIS), 43, 82, 86, 95, 114, 133 Foreign plant diseases, 25 precision agriculture using, 43 Forests, integrated pest management program for, 111–116 Georeferenced risk maps, 43 actions and consequences in, 115–116 Georeferenced sampling protocols, 43 detection and evaluation in, 114 Geospatial systems, 89 future concerns in, 116 Geostatistical analysis and mapping, 116 hazard rating systems in, 115 German cockroach, 161 prevention in, 113 Giant Salvinia Task Force (GSTF), 154–155 soil in, 116–118 Giant water fern, 149, 154–155 Fourth National IPM Symposium, 230 Gibberellin, 57 Fowl ticks, 165 Girdlers, 98 Fox, 176 Gliocladium virens, 52 Frightening devices, wildlife damage control with, 173, 176 Global positioning systems (GPS), 5, 43, 82, 95, 114, 133 Fruit crops, 103–109 Globodera pallida, 52 Fruit flies, 161 Glufosinate, 59 Fungal canker diseases, 27 Glyphosate, 59, 131, 151, 154 Fungal-resistance management strategies, 63 Glyphosate-resistant horseweed, 59 Fungal viruses, 29 Gnats, 159 Fungi, 63 Goats, loss of, 175–176 entomopathogenic, 161 Goosegrass, 64 potato late blight, 25, 71, 201 Government Performance and Results Act, 217 tobacco blue mold, 71 Government policy and regulations, 3, 227–229 Fungicides, 11, 63 GPFARM, 90 protectant, 55 Grain buffer strips, 175 trends in, 56–57 Grass carp, 49, 149 Fungi tests, 45 Grazing practices, 175 Fungivorous nematodes, 92 Greenhouse crops, 47 Fusarium head blight, 72 Greenhouse systems, 119 Fusarium wilt, 97 Green manures, 28, 35, 38–39 Future challenges and directions, 2–3, 10 Gregarina alphitobii, 164 for companion animal ectoparasites, 186 GREY GOLD, 51 crop production systems and, 122–123 Grid sampling, 86 ecologically based integrated pest management, 2–3, 225–227 Gross margin, 206 for field crops, 99 Groundsel, 132 for food animal integrated pest management, 166 Ground squirrels, 175 for forests, 116–117 Grower compliance, 67 gene technology constraints, 2, 222–224 Growth regulator herbicides, 131 genetic diversity and pest adaptability, 2, 224–225 Guard dogs, 176 government policy and regulations in, 3, 227–229 Gunfire, 173 host plant resistance and, 34 Gypsy moth, 25 for integrated forest pest management, 116–117 need for improvements in furthering goals, 229–230 H systems approaches, 3, 226 transfer of technology in, 3, 226–227 Habitat management, 99 Haematobia irritans, 159–160 Index 239

Haematopinus suis, 160 Hydrotaea ignava, 161 Hand removal. See also Mechanical removal; Physical control Hydrotaea spp., 161, 163 of aquatic vegetation, 146 Hyperspectral analysis, 43 in weed management, 129 Hares, 174 I Hazard rating systems, 115 Health and environmental effects, measuring value of, 203–204 IKONOS satellite, 85 Heartworm, 8, 180, 181 Imazapic, 131 prevention of, 183 Imidacloprid, 58, 184 testing for, 181 Imidazolinone, 59 Heat treatments, 13, 28 Immunocontraception, 173 Hedgerows, 52 Imported fire ant, 25 Helicoverpa zea, 33 Indirect intervention, 116 Helminthosporium leaf spot, 30 In-field sensing, 86 Herbicide-resistant crops, 88, 96 Information multipliers, 85, 90 Herbicide-resistant weeds, 64 Insectary plants, 52 Herbicides, 11, 95, 130. See also Bioherbicides; Nematicides Insect biocontrol, 47, 49 amino acid synthesis inhibitor, 131 Insect growth regulators, 159, 160, 162–163, 182, 184, 185 bio-, 49 Insecticidal chemicals, 58–59. See also Chemical pesticides cell-membrane disruptor, 131 Insecticides, 64, 158 chemical, 131 trends in, 57–58 copper-containing, 152 Insect-juvenile hormone, 57–58 growth regulator, 131 Insect management program, 97 in integrated management of invasive plant species in natural Insect-resistant crops, 5 areas, 142 Insects, 64 market for aquatic, 150 assessment of infestations, 43–44 photosynthesis inhibitor, 131 corn, 96–97 tillage and, 37–38 cotton, 97–98 trends in, 59 management of, 134–135 Herbicide tolerance, 6, 10, 21, 30, 200 in pasture and rangeland, 134–135 Hermetia illucens, 161, 163 soybean, 98–99 Hessian fly, 12, 31 Insect-tolerant crops, 88 Heterodera schachtii, 28 Inspections, 25–26 Hexaxinone, 131 Integrated control, 4, 11, 13, 22, 112, 123 Hide beetle, 163 Integrated Crop and Pest Management Recommendations for Com- Hoeing, 129 mercial Vegetable Production (Reiners, Petzoldt, and Hoff- Hog louse, 160 mann), 42 Hood River Grower/Shipper, 67 Integrated fruit production systems, 66–67 Hoofed animals. See Ungulates Integrated pest management, 6, 11, 22, 111, 122, 196. See also Pest Horizontal resistance, 29, 74 control; Pest management Horn flies, 159–160 adoption of, 202, 213, 215–217 Horse flies, 159 agricultural, 188 Horseweed, 64 agricultural bioterrorism and, 73 Host plant eradication, 27 agricultural income risk and, 200–201 Host resistance, 4, 10, 29–34. See also Crop resistance; Pest-resis- of aquatic vegetation, 7, 145–155 tant crops assessments of, 2, 3, 229 companion animals and, 185 biologically based, 47 current trends in breeding for, 33–34 certification in, 65–67 future challenges and directions for, 34 current status of implementation, 184 limitations on, 31, 33 definition of, 11, 12, 14, 209, 229 obtaining, 30 delivery systems, 211 value and success in, 31 ecologically based, 2–3, 39, 225–227 Host susceptibility, 13 economics and, 198 Hot water treatment, 28 for ectoparasites, 186 Houndstongue, 131 education and, 209–212, 213–215, 216 Houseflies, 1, 8, 157–159, 160–161 evolution of, 12–16 Huffaker Project, 11, 13, 14, 105 first-level, 107, 123 Human-health concerns in urban integrated pest management, food animal, 157–166 191–192 with food animals, 157–166 Hunting, 174 beetles, 163–164 Hydrilla, 148, 153 ectoparasite, 164–166 Hydrilla stem borer, 153 future needs for, 166 Hydrilla tuber weevil, 153 livestock, 157–159 Hydrolysis, 61 poultry, 161–163 240 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

range cattle, 159–160 Invasive Species Management Plan, 73 swine, 160–161 Invasive weeds, management methods for, 138–143 for forests, 111–116 Irrigation, 83–84 actions and consequences in, 115–116 soil compaction and, 190 detection and evaluation in, 114 Italian ryegrass, 64 future concerns in, 116 Itch mite, 160 hazard rating systems in, 115 Ivermectin, 159 prevention in, 113 soil in, 116–118 J history of, 4, 11–23 improvements needed to further goals of, 229–230 Johnson grass, 27 intended and unintended effects on, 204–205 labeling in, 106 K measurement systems in, 203, 217–219 measuring progress in adoption of, 105 Kairomones, 33, 74 organic production systems and, 117–120 Karnal bunt, 72 overall returns to research and outreach in, 204 Key pest, 12–13, 22 for range cattle, 159–160 Knapweed, 25 regulation of, 68–69 diffuse, 132 resistance management in, 62–63 Russian, 25, 133 second-level, 107, 123 spotted, 132 site-specific, 82–89 Kresoxim-methyl chemistries, 56 sustainable agriculture and, 122 Kudzu, 71 swine, 160–161 Kühn, Julius Gotthele, 4, 11 third-level, 107, 123 in twenty-first century, 19–22 L urban, 188–197 Integrated pest management risk insurance, 222 Labeling, 56, 103. See also Ecolabels Integrated pest management toolbox, 4–5, 25–74 Lady beetles, 191 agricultural bioterrorism and, 73 Land application of manure, 158 biological control, 46–53 Landsat I, 84 certification and regulation, 65–69 Landscape design, 193 as critical component, 53–55 Landscape management, 194 cultural practices for minimizing crop pests, 34–40 techniques of, 195–196 decision support aids, 41–46 Land-use history, 140 effects of invasive pests, 69–73 Larder beetle, 163 eradication, 27–29 Larkspur, 132 exclusion/avoidance, 25–27 Late blight, 101 host resistance, 29–34 Leaf mining fly, 153 pesticide resistance management, 61–65 Leafroller insects, 108 pesticides, 53–61 Leaf spot diseases, 134 Integrated whole-farm, systems approach to agricultural research Leafy spurge, 25, 71, 131, 132, 133 and management, 89–90 Leghold traps, 177 Integrating cultural management programs, 40 Lesion nematodes, 45 Intellectual property of genetic engineer, 223 Lice, 159, 181, 183–184 Interactive simulation modeling, 99 Life-cycle assessments, 64–65 INTERCOM, 89 Light penetration, control of for limiting aquatic plants, 148 Intercropping, 35, 39, 119 Light traps, 186 International Center for Agricultural Research in Dryland Areas Limonene, 185 (ICARDA), 30 Linalool, 185 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), 30 Linognathus setosus, 183 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Live capture and relocation, 174 30 Livestock integrated pest management International Potato Center (CIP), 30 dairy cow and confined cattle, 157–159 International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), 30 range cattle, 159–160 Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 69 swine, 160–161 Intersociety Consortium for Plant Protection, 14 Llamas, 176 Invasive pests, effects of, 69–73 Looper, 12 Invasive plants, 10 Low-input agriculture, 120 integrated management of specific, 142, 151–155 Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) Program, 120 Invasive species control, 133 Lure crops, 173 Invasive Species Council, 73, 224–225 Lyme disease, 8, 180, 181, 184 Index 241

M Miticides, 55, 64 Molecular technology, 30, 43, 58 Macrocheles muscaedomesticae, 162 Monitoring, 12, 22 Macrocyclic lactones, 185 Monoculture, 52, 92, 119 Maine, University of, integrated pest management education at, Mosquitoes, 8, 159, 180, 181, 183 212 Mountain beavers, 175 Maintenance control, 7, 145, 155 Mountain lions, 176, 177 Mammalian predators, 8 Mowing, 130 damage assessment, 175–176 Multilines, 29, 74 damage identification, 176 Multiple chemical sensitivity, 191, 197 damage prevention and control, 176–177 Multiple cropping, 35, 39 Management maps, 82 Multiple-pathogens strategy, 50 Mange, 160, 166, 181, 182, 187 Multiple resistance, 100 notoedric, 182 Musca domestica, 157–159, 161 red, 182 Muscidifurax raptor, 158 sarcoptic, 182 Muscidifurax spp., 162 Manure Muscidifurax zaraptor, 159 green, 28, 35, 38–39 Muscoid flies, 161 land application of, 158 Muskrats, 175 removal of, 164 Musk thistle, 132, 133 Maryland, University of, integrated pest management education Mycoparasitism, 29 at, 212 Mycoplasmas, 71 Massachusetts, University of Extension Program, 66 N integrated pest management education at, 212 Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, 66 National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program Meadow voles, 175 (NAPIAP), 69 Mealworm, 163 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), 69 Measurement systems in integrated pest management, 217–219 National Coalition of Integrated Pest Management, 12 Mechanical ectoparasite suppression, 186 National Environmental Policy Act guidelines, 138 Mechanical removal. See also Hand removal; Physical control National Foundation for IPM Education, 19 of aquatic vegetation, 146–147, 155 National Integrated Pest Management Forum, 16, 217 of companion animal ectoparasites, 186 National Invasive Species Management Plan, 138 of weeds, 38, 129, 139–140 National IPM Initiative, 3 Mediterranean fruit fly, 25 National Organic Program (NOP) Final Rule, 118 Mediterranean sage, 132 National Plan for the Development and Implementation of Inte- Menacanthus spp., 164 grated Pest Management Systems, 68 Metam-sodium, 60 National Resources Conservation Service, 90, 222 Metarhizium anisopliae, 161, 163, 166 National Science Foundation (NSF), 11 Methoprene, 160 Pest Management Center, 69, 242 Methyl bromide, 28, 59 Native plant species, re-establishment of, 141–142 Methyl iodide, 60 Natural agriculture, 118, 120 Metsulfuron, 131 Natural areas, 137–144 Mexican bean beetle, 98 Natural areas management of invasive weeds, 7, 138–142 Mice, 191 Natural ecological balances, 40 Michigan State University, 93 Natural ecosystems, 1 Migrant pests, 13 Nebraska, University of, 89 Milk production, 157–158 Neem, 60, 120 Mink, 176 Nematicides, trends in, 59, 60. See also Bioherbicides; Herbicides Minor-use chemicals, 15 Nematodes, 45, 50–52, 60, 64, 92, 119, 137 Minor-use crops, 14, 46, 157, 228 Columbia lance, 98 Mississippi State University, integrated pest management educa- cyst, 12, 26, 27, 36–37, 92 tion at, 213 entomophilic, 47 Mites, 64, 159, 182–183 fungivorous, 92 chicken, 164 lesion, 45 demodex, 182–183 pinewood, 45 dust, 191 plant parasitic, 49, 134–135 ear, 181, 182 potato cyst, 25 itch, 160 resistance and, 33 northern fowl, 164–165 ring rot, 26 predatory, 162 root-knot, 12, 28, 37, 39, 45, 60, 92, 119 wheat curl, 26 root lesion, 41 242 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

stem, 92 21, 68–69 Neonicotinyl chemistries, 58 Pantoea agglomerans, 51 Neoschoengastia americana, 165 Paraquat, 131 Net gain function, 199, 206 Parasiticides, 8 New Hampshire, University of, integrated pest management edu- Parasitoids, 158, 162 cation at, 212 Parrotsfeather, 148 New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, 109 Partners with Nature, 66 Nicotine, 184 Pasteurization of soils, 27–28, 119 Nitrogen leaching, 93 Pasture. See also Rangeland Nixon Administration, 16 weed management on, 7, 128–135 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 62 Pathogen-free certification programs, 26 North Carolina State University Pathogens integrated pest management education at, 211 associated, 8 IPM conference hosted by, 19–20 biocontrol of, 50–52 Northern corn rootworm, 96 corn, 96–97 Northern fowl mites, 164–165 cotton, 97–98 No-till agriculture, 35, 37–38, 88 detection and diagnoses of, 44 Notoedres cati, 183 management of, 134–135 Notoedric mange, 183 in pasture and rangeland, 134–135 Noxious Weed Act, 139 soybean, 98–99 Nutraceuticals, 87, 90 Pathosystems, 73, 74 Nutrient cycling, 116 Penicillium species, 26 Nutrient limitation, 148 Penn State University, integrated pest management education at, 212 O Permethrin, 184 Permethrin-impregnated strips, 165–166 Oat crown rust, 27 Pest assays, 95 Occasional pests, 13 Pest-avoidance strategies, 26 Ohio State University, integrated pest management education at, Pest control, 192, 197. See also Integrated pest management; Pest 210, 212 management Onion growers, use of Sudan grass by, 104 costs of, 199 Onthophagus gazella, 160 Pest damage thresholds, 186–200 Onthophagus taurus, 160 Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP), 17–18 Organic agriculture, 118, 122 Pesticide Impact Assessment Programs (PIAP), 228 Organically grown plants, 34, 117–118 Pesticide-resistant crops, 20–21, 30 Organic cropping systems, 117–118 Pesticide resistant pest population, 107 Organic farming, 118, 123 Pesticides, 53–61, 115, 165–166 Organic food production, 121 alternative, 195 Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), 118 application of, 83 Organic matter, 118 chemical, 55–56, 58–59, 65, 118, 120, 191–192, 194 Organic production, 99, 123 children's exposure to, 191 integrated pest management and, 118–120 resistance management, 61–65 Organic soil amendments, 28 role of, 55 Organic systems/sustainable agriculture, 117–123. See also Sus- rotation of, 36 tainable agriculture trends in delivery technology, 60–61 components of, 121–122 Pest management, 123, 192, 197. See also Integrated pest man- field organic systems, 119–120 agement; Pest control greenhouse systems, 119 biointensive, 12, 19, 21 integrated pest management and, 118–120, 122 ecologically based, 12, 21, 92, 122 organic cropping systems, 117–120 preventive, 13, 22 outlook, 122 site-specific, 40, 82–89, 95 sustainable cropping systems, 120–121 strategies in, 93 Organophosphate (OP) insecticides, 161, 165 training for personnel in, 2 Organophosphates, 57, 184, 185 Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP), 17, 69, 228 Oriental cockroach, 161 Pest Management at the Crossroads (Benbrook), 5, 16, 19, 225 Ornamental plants, damage to, 173 Pest Management Information Decision Support System Ornithonyssus sylviarum, 164 (PMIDSS), 69, 228 Overhead fencing, 176 Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Canada (PMRA), 62 Pest prevention by exclusion, 192–193 P Pest-protected plants, 222, 230 Pest-resistant crops, 2, 100–101, 200. See also Crop resistance; Paecilomyces lilacinus, 52 Host resistance PAMS: Prevention, Avoidance, Monitoring, and Suppression, 12, Pests, 22 Index 243

crop, 34–40 fly management and, 161–163 invasive, 69–73 integrated pest management and, 1 migrant, 13 Powdery mildew, 29 occasional, 13 Precision agriculture, 5, 10, 43, 61, 95, 114 potential, 13 Precision farming, 5, 82–83, 90 secondary, 13, 22–23 Predaceous beetles, 162 Pest significance, 180–181 Predator calls, 177 Pest-specific diseases, 195 Predatory mites, 162 Pest surveillance, 98 Prescribed burning, 140–141 Pest tolerance levels, establishing, 189–190 Prescription crops, 84 Pest-tolerant crops, 2 Prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and suppression (PAMS) con- Pet ownership, 8, 180. See also Companion-animal ectoparasites cept, 12, 21, 68 fleas and, 181–182 Preventive pest management, 7, 12, 13, 22 lice and, 183–184 with ectoparasites, 165–166 mites and, 182–183 environmental contamination and, 191 mosquitoes and, 183 for forests, 113 pest significance and, 180–181 mammalian predators and, 176–177 stable flies and, 184 for mammals, 176–177 ticks and, 184 for rodents, 175 Pharmaceuticals, 87 tactics in, 98–99 Phenylpyrazole, 58, 184 for ungulates, 172–174 Pheromone aggregation, 116 for weeds, 129, 133–139 Pheromone disruption, 109 Private sector initiatives, 205 Phorid fly, 70 Processing and production methods, 64–65 Photostabilization of natural insecticidal pyrethrins, 57 Prohexadione calcium, 57 Photosynthesis inhibitor herbicides, 131 Prophylaxis, 181 Phymatotrichum, 98 PRO-TECH, 106 Physical control, 129–131, 139–140. See also Hand removal; Me- Protectant fungicides, 55 chanical removal Protoplast fusion, 100 Phytophagous fish species, 149–150, 155 Pruning, 27 Phytophthoram spp., 26 Pruritus, 181, 187 Pine voles, 175 Pseudomonas fluorescens, 51, 52 Pinewood nematode, 45 Pseudomonas syringae, 51 Pink bollworms, 37, 54, 97 Public program assessment, 202–205 PLANETOR, 90 Purdue University, integrated pest management education at, 212 Plant breeding programs, 33–34 Pyraclostrobin, 56 Plant-feeding fish species, 149–150 Pyramiding resistance genes, 29, 74 Plant genomics, 88 Pyrethrin, 195 Plant growth regulator, 57 Pyrethroid-impregnated ear tags, 159 Plant parasitic nematodes, 134–135 Pyrethroids, 55, 161, 165, 184, 185 Plant pests, reemergence of old, 72–73 Pyriproxifen, 163 Plant Quarantine Act (1912), 25 Pythium nunn, 51 Plant susceptibility, 190 Pythium spp., 26 Plastic tree wrap, 173 Pleiotropic effects, 222, 230 Q Pocket gopher, 175 Pod feeders, 98 Quantitative resistance traits, 223 Poisoning, 109, 174 Quarantines, 25–26 Polyculture, 35, 39, 52, 11\98 Polyhedrosis viruses, 33 R Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based protocols, 45 Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, 161 Rabbits, 174, 175 Porcupines, 175 Raccoons, 176 Postharvest decay problems, 109 Rainforest Alliance, 65, 66 Postharvest diseases, 109 Rainforest Alliance ECO-O.K. label, 65 Potato, 101 Range cattle integrated pest management, 159–160 Potato cyst nematode, 25, 52, 92 Rangeland. See also Pasture Potato golden nematode, 28, 72 weed management on, 7, 128–135 Potato late blight fungus, 25, 71, 201 Rats, 174 Potential pests, 13 rDNA-based PCR, 45 Poultry Reclamation, Bureau of, 129 beetle management and, 163–164 Record keeping in urban integrated pest management, 196 ectoparasite management and, 164–166 Red foxes, 176 244 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Red mange, 183 Sarcoptic mange, 183 Red squirrels, 175 Savanna, 141, 144 Reduced input agriculture, 120 Save the Manatee Club, 150 Refugia, 5, 35, 39–40, 43, 52, 62, 92. See also Resistance manage- Scabies, 181, 182 ment Sclerotinia, 26 Regenerative agriculture, 120 Scouting, 98, 101, 123 Regional Integrated Pest Management Grants Program (RIPM), Screwworm flies, 159 69 Secondary pests, 13, 22 Remote sensing, 43, 84–86 Second-level integrated pest management, 107, 123 Repellents, 173–174, 184 Semichemicals, 56, 74 Replacement plants, 128 Septoria, 30 Resident Instruction Committee on Organization and Policy, 209 Seral-stage forest, 143 Resistance management, 159, 223. See also Refugia Sheep, loss of, 175–176 fungal, 63 Shell crackers, 173 in integrated pest management context, 62–63 Silent Spring (Carson), 4, 11 pesticide, 61–65 Silvicultural treatments, 113, 116 tactics and tools in, 63–65 Site-specific agriculture, 43, 82 transgenics and, 87–88 Site-specific input management, 83–84 Resistance traits, 223 Site-specific pest management, 40, 82–89, 95 quantitative, 223 Situation-specific decision making, 190 Resistant squash, pest-, 100 Snares, 177 Revegetation strategies, 133 Soft rot bacteria, 26 Rhizobacteria, 50, 51 Soil-active herbicides, 144 Rhizobia, 52 Soilborne pathogens, management of, 119 Rhizobiophages, 52 Soil fumigation, 29 Rhode Island, University of, integrated pest management educa- Soil inhabitants, 27, 74 tion at, 212 Soil invaders, 27, 74 Rhodotorula glutinis, 51 Soils Rigid ryegrass, 64 in integrated forest pest management programs, 116–118 Ring rot nematodes, 26 pasteurization of, 27–28, 119 Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP), 15 solarization of, 27, 74, 119 Risk management, 20–22, 229 Soldier flies, 161 Rocket nets, 174 Solenopsis invicta, 224 Rocky Mountain spotted fever, 8, 180, 181, 184 Solution to Environmental and Economic Problems (STEEP), 211 Rodents, 8 Southern corn leaf blight, 31 damage assessment, 174–175 Southern pine beetle, 112 damage identification, 175 Soybean aphid, 25, 99 damage prevention and control, 175 Soybean cyst nematode, 25, 36–37, 72, 98 Root-knot nematodes, 12, 28, 37, 39, 45, 60, 92, 119 Soybean insects and pathogens, 98–99 Root lesion nematode, 41 Spalangia nigroaenea, 159 Root maggot, 12 Spalangia spp., 162 Root pathogens, 52 Spatial strategies in integrated pest management, 86–87 Root-rot pathogens, 26 Spatterdock, 152 Root rots, 134 Spinosyns, 58 Rotational tagging, 159 Spot card technique, 158 Rotenone, 195 Spot foliar application, 142 Row crop agriculture, 61 Spotted knapweed, 132 Row guidance system, 38 Spot treating, 196, 197 Rush skeletonweed, 132 Spruce budworms, 112 Russian knapweed, 25, 133 Squash, pest-resistant, 100 Russian wheat aphid, 25 Squirrels, 175 Rutgers University, integrated pest management education at, 212 ground, 175 red, 175 S Stable flies, 8, 157–161, 184 Starlink corn, 5 St. John’s Wort, 132 Steam pasteurization, 119 Salmonella, 163 Steinernema carpocapsae, 185 Saltcedar, 133 Stem feeders, 98 Salvage removal, 116 Stemilt Responsible Choice, 66–67 Sampling, 44 Stem nematodes, 92 georeferenced, protocols, 43 Sticktight fleas, 165 grid, 86 Sticky ribbons, 162 Sanitation practices, 12, 21, 175 Stomoxys calcitrans, 157–159, 161 Index 245

Storage Trainers, evolving pool of, 3 low-oxygen, 109 Training. See Education problems in, 26–27 Tranquilizer guns, 174 Streptomycin, 51, 63 Transgenic crops, 47, 52, 221 Striped skunks, 176 Transgenics, 5, 63, 74 Strobilurin, 56 resistance management and, 87–88 Submersed plants, 145, 155 Trap-crop root, 28 Sudan grass, 104 Trap crops, 5, 28, 35, 38, 92 Sugarcane, rodent damage to, 174–175 Trap-out techniques, 116, 123 Sulfonylurea, 59 Trapping, 175 Suppression, 12, 22 Trap-tree, 116, 123 Surfactants, 61 Tree protectors, 173 Sustainable agriculture, 5, 34, 120, 121, 123. See also Organic sys- Trenomyces histophtorus, 166 tems/sustainable agriculture Trichodectes canis, 183 components of, 121–122 Trichoderma hamatum, 51 Sustainable cropping systems, 120–121, 221 Trichoderma harzianum, 95, 51 Swine Triclopyr, 131 integrated pest management for, 160–161 Trifloxystrobin, 56 production of, 1 Trisulfuron, 131 Swine erysipelas, 158 Tungro, 38 Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) inducers, 57 Turkey chiggers, 165 Systems approaches, 3, 226–227 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D), 152

T U Tansy ragwort, 132 Tapeworms, 8, 180, 181 Ultra-low-volume (ULV) sprayers, 61 Target zone, 197 Ungulates, 8, 177 Tebufenozide, 58 damage assessment, 171–172 Tebuthiuron, 131 damage identification, 172 Technology. See also Biotechnology damage prevention and control, 172–174 applied, 46 Urban areas, 2, 8–9 DNA, 10, 43 Urban integrated pest management, 2, 8–9, 188–197 gene, 2, 222–224 application of techniques, 192–196 integrated, whole-farm, systems approach to agricultural re- defined, 188–189 search and management, 89–90 evaluation and record keeping, 196 molecular, 30, 43, 58 inspection, 189 new and emerging, 5, 82–90, 99 monitoring, 189–190 transfer of, 3, 226–227 situation-specific decision making, 190–192 trends in pesticide delivery, 60–61 Urban pest, 188, 197 Termites, 196 Uruguay Round, 68 Texas A&M University, integrated pest management education at, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 11 210 Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center, 201, 204 Texas Pest Management Association (TPMA), 226 Agricultural Marketing Service, 201 TEXCIM, 98 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 25 Thiamethoxam, 58 Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, 17–18 Third-level integrated pest management, 107, 123 Consolidated Farm Service Agency, 66 Third National IPM Symposium, 217 Cooperative Extension Service, 11 Tick paralysis, 181, 187 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 15 Ticks, 8, 159, 180, 184 Integrated Pest Management Programs, 16–17, 69 Tillage, 11, 35, 37–38, 130 National Organic Standards Board, 118 Time-density-equivalent concept, 46 Plant Protection and Quarantine Program, 128 Time-sensitive information, 85 Regional IPM Centers, 10 Tobacco blue mold fungus, 71 Risk Management Agency, 201, 204, 229 Tobacco budworm, 33, 97 Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, 120 Tobacco hornworm, 37 Tolerance levels in urban buildings and structures, 189-191 V in urban landscapes, 190 Torpedo grass, 154 VantagePoint Network, 85 Toxicant-induced loss of tolerance, 191, 197 Vedalia lady beetle, 46 Toxicants, 175 Vegetable crops, 99–103 Trade-offs, 191, 197 Vegetation, integrated management of aquatic, 7, 145–155 246 Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies

Venturia inaequalis, 63 ungulates, 171–172 Vertical resistance, 29, 74 Wimmera ryegrass, 135 Verticillium chlamydosporium, 52 Windbreaks, 119 Verticillium wilt, 38 Wind currents, 71 Viruses, 71, 109 Wingspread Conference, 16 Virus tests, 44–45 Wisconsin, University of, Integrated Pest Management Program Vision-guided systems, 38 at, 42, 205 Voles, 174 Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, 22, 107, 205 WISDOM computer software program, 15, 42 W Witchweed parasite, 71 Wood rats, 175 Washington State University's Tree Fruit Research and Extension World Trade Organization (WTO), 26 Center, 109 World Wildlife Fund, 22, 205 Wasps, 191 Waste management, 166 X Water application, 83–84 Water hyacinth, 148, 151–152 Xanthium strumatium, 64 Water hyacinth moth, 152 Water hyacinth weevils, 152 Y Water lettuce, 149, 154 Water lettuce weevil, 154 Yellow starthistle, 132 Water-level manipulation, 140, 141, 147, 155 Yield monitors, 86 Water mold, 26 Water reservoirs, 52 Z Weather information in integrated pest management, 41–43, 54 Weed-free fields, aesthetic value of, 95 Zoonoses, 181, 187 Weed harvesters, 147 Weed management, 92, 128–135 biological controls in, 49–50, 131–132 chemical controls in, 131 education and awareness in, 128–129 insects and pathogens in, 134–135 integrated systems for, 134 invasive species control and site preparation in, 133 monitoring and mapping, 133–134 physical and mechanical controls in, 129–131 plant competition and rehabilitation in, 132–133 prevention and early detection in, 129 Weed resistance, 11 Weeds, 64–65, 95–96 assessments of, 45–46 control of, 33, 175 WEEDSIM, 96 WeedSOFT, 15, 89 Weevils, 134, 154 Wegman's grocery, 21–22, 67, 106, 205 Wegmans Initiative, 106 Western corn rootworm, 96, 97 West Virginia University's Kearneysville Tree Fruit Research and Education Center, 107 Wheat curl mites, 26 Wheat Health Management (Cook and Veseth), 93 Wheat stem rust, 27, 31 Wheat stem sawfly, 25 White fly, 72 White mold disease, 92 White pine blister rust, 25, 27, 115 Whole-farm systems approach to agricultural research and management, 5 Wildlife, 1–2, 8 damage control for, 171–177 mammals, 8, 175–177 rodents, 174–175